Representations to the Calderdale Local Plan Publication Draft 2018 - Prepared on behalf of Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes (Yorkshire West) ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Representations to the Calderdale Local Plan
Publication Draft 2018
Prepared on behalf of Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes (Yorkshire West)
September 2018Representations to the Calderdale Local Plan Publication Draft 2018
Prepared on behalf of Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes (Yorkshire West)
Status: Draft Final
Issue/Rev: 01 02
Date: September 2018 September 2018
Prepared by: CA CA
Checked by: SN SN
Authorised by: SN SN
Barton Willmore LLP
14 King Street
Leeds
LS1 2HL
Tel: 0113 2044777 Ref: 29481/A5/LPREPS/CA
Email: chris.atkinson@bartonwillmore.co.uk Date: September 2018
COPYRIGHT
The contents of this document must not be copie d or reproduced in whole or in part without the written
consent of Barton Willmore LLP.
All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetable oil based inks.Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Section 4 - Objectives 3 3.0 Section 5 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 4 4.0 Section 6 – Planning for Growth 5 5.0 Section 9 – Sites for Housing 8 6.0 Section 10 – Addressing Climate Change 12 7.0 Section 12 – Health and Well Being 13 8.0 Section 13 – Infrastructure and Master Planning 15 9.0 Section 14 – Employment and the Economy 18 8.0 Section 16 – Housing 19 9.0 Section 17 – Built Environment 22 10.0 Summary and Conclusions 24 Appendix 1 – Barton Willmore Objectively Assessed Housing Need Technical Paper Appendix 2 – Site Specific Representations prepared by PB Planning
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations are made on behalf of Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes (Yorkshire
West) (hereafter referred to as ‘our Client’) to consider the soundness of the Calderdale Local
Plan Publication Draft 2019 (CLP). Our Client has a significant portfolio of sites in Calderdale
and is therefore a key stakeholder, with a key interest in the delivery of a sound Local Plan.
1.2 Our Client is recognised nationally as one of the foremost providers of new homes (both market
and affordable) and wishes to work positively with in the Calderdale area to assist in providing the
required level of homes to meet the needs of the District, as identified in the Local Plan.
1.3 Our Client has been actively involved in local plan making process in Calderdale and have made
representations at all stages of the Local Plan.
1.4 These representations make overarching comments on the strategic and development
management policies with the CLP and comment on the overall soundness. They should be read
in conjunction with the following:
• Report into Calderdale Council Full Objectively Assessed Need prepared by Barton
Willmore (Appendix 1); and
• Site Specific representations prepared by PB Planning (Appendix 2).
1.5 For ease of reference and to note the scale of our Clients interests, Table 1.1 below identified the
sites that are being promoted in paralle l to these overarching representations.
Table 1.1: Barratt & David Wilson Homes’ Site Interests in Calderdale
Site Address Council’s Site CLP Designation Indicative
Reference Capacity
Halifax Road, Brighouse LP1095 Proposed housing 150
allocation
Soaper Lane, Shelf LP1462 Not allocated 275
Saddleworth Road, LP0177 Not allocated 200
Greetland
Stainland Road, Hollywell LP0982 Not allocated 61
Green
Illingworth Road, LP0773 Not allocated 110
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 1 September 2018Introduction
Bradshaw
1.6 The individual site representations prepared by PB Pl anning address the deletion of the sites
mentioned above, as well as demonstrating their deliverability.
Soundness
1.7 As this is the Publication version of the CLP, these representations will consider tests of
soundness to highlight the areas of the plan that are considered unsound and would remain so
should amendments not be made.
1.8 Therefore, in considering the CLP these representations will have full regard to the tests of
soundness identified in paragraph 35 of the Revised National Planning Policy Framework, with
specific reference made to the appropriate test where objections are made and alterations
identified on how the plan can be made sound. For ease of reference, these tests are noted as:
“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;
Justified – and appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable
alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working
on cross-boundary strategic matters that have be en dealt with rather than
deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development
in accordance with the policies in this Framework”.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 2 September 2018Section 4 - Objectives
2.0 SECTION 4 - OBJECTIVES
2.1 The opening chapters of the Council’s draft Local Plan provide useful background and context to
Calderdale, as well as outlining an overall vision for the area over the plan period. These matters
are then taken into account in section 4, where a serious of k ey objectives are set out.
2.2 It is important to note the content of some of the objectives set out by the Council within the
draft CLP as these provide important context to comments which are raised within our
representations. For example, Strategic Objective 3: Economy and Enterprise states that the
Council aim to “create a resilient sustainable economy founded upon innovation and enterprise;
building upon the exceptional character of Calderdale and our location within Leeds City Region
and proximity to Manchester”. In the supporting text there are statements such as “the
aspirations that the Council has to be “the Best Borough in the North” with priorities relating to
Growing the Economy”.
2.3 With regards to housing, Strategic Objective 4: Housing states as f ollows “to meet the Borough’s
housing needs through the provision of a range of good quality dwellings of varying types, sizes
and prices in sustainable locations utilising sustainable building methods and maximising the
use of brownfield land”. Within the supporting text the Council note it is “a fundamental aim of
Government policy as exemplified through the NPPF is to significantly boost the supply of
housing”.
2.4 Whilst the positive aspirations are welcomed there are genuine concerns that the Council have
not prepared a suitable Plan that will achieve any of these aspirations and this is demonstrated
with these representations, together with our report regarding the objectively assessed need and
the site-specific representations prepared by PB Planning.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 3 September 2018Section 5 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable De velopment
3.0 SECTION 5 – PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Policy SD1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
3.1 Our Client welcomes the inclusion of a policy that sets out the presumption in favour of
sustainable development. However, Policy SD1 is unsound as currently drafted as it is not in
accordance with national guidance, thus failing the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of
the Revised Framework.
3.2 Our Clients objection relates to the reference to material considerations in the foll owing
sentence – “planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (an, where
relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material
considerations indicate otherwise” (our emphasis). The final sentence, which we have underlined
does not align with national guidance and has been added in by the Council and goes above and
beyond national requirements.
3.3 The whole purpose of the presumption in favour of development is to ensure that suitable and
sustainable development is approved without delay and seeks to ensure that development is not
unnecessarily held up through the planning system. A development which fully accords with all
policies in a Local Plan and therefore constitutes acceptable develop ment, would not be subject
to material considerations.
3.4 Given the broad nature of material considerations, the addition of this paragraph opens up
potential debate and delays on developments which are fully in accordance with local planning
policies. This is in turn will have the opposite effect on development proposals than is intended
by the Government in the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
3.5 Policy SD1 is unsound as currently drafted as it fails to accord with national guidance and it is
not positively prepared as it will delay acceptable development from coming forward. As such,
our Client objects to the policy and they advise that the reference to material considerations is
deleted.
Policy SD2 – Sustainable Development
3.6 Within Policy SD2 the Council state that all new development is expected to make a positive
contribution to sustainable development and a list of ways in which that would be achieved are
set out within the policy.
3.7 Our Client understands the reasoning behind this policy and they seek to ensure that their
developments adhere to high standards, however, the policy as currently drafted makes no
reference to viability. It is not disputed that the proposals set out within the policy should be
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 4 September 2018Section 5 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable De velopment
encouraged wherever possible, however, there are instances where mitigation measures can have
an adverse impact upon the deliverability of a scheme and as such, it is advised that a caveat is
added to the policy to state that it is subject to viability.
3.8 Our Client objects to Policy SD2 as currently drafted, as the requirements of the policy, which are
expected to be achieved through new developments, are overly generic. The policy, if it is to be
retained, should encourage, but not expect new developments to make a positive contribution to
sustainable development, if financially viable.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 5 September 2018Section 6 – Planning for Growth
4.0 SECTION 6 – PLANNING FOR GROWTH
4.1 Barton Willmore have prepared a report which analyses the Council’s full objectively assessed
housing need and this is included at Appendix 1 of these representations.
Policy SD3 – Housing Requirement
4.2 It is noted that the Council are proposing to utilise the Minister for Housing, Communities and
Local Government (MHCLG) standardised methodology as the means for calculating the District’s
housing needs. Whilst this is addressed in detail in our attached report, there are additional
important issues that should be raised.
4.3 Firstly, it is clear that the standardised methodo logy should not be utilised until after January
2019 and given the fact that the Plan is at Publication stage, the current approach to calculating
housing need as set out in the 2012 version of the Framework should be utilised. As such, our
Client strongly objects to the use of the MHCLG methodology as this approach is considered to be
unsound as it is not positively prepared and not in accordance with national guidance, thus
failing to meet the tests of soundness as set in paragraph 35 of the Revised Fram ework. There is
no justifiable reason why the Council’s plan should not be submitted for Examination before
January 2019.
4.4 Notwithstanding this, the Government have confirmed that they will be looking again at the
methodology is September as the current me thodology does not deliver on the aspirations to
increase housing delivery as proposed. Indeed, nationally circa 266,000 new homes would be
delivered per annum which falls significantly short of the 300,000 target. As such, there is a very
real prospect that the methodology will change in due course, adding further weight to the
argument that the Council should not utilise the MHCLG methodology.
4.5 Our Client strongly objects to the reduction in the housing requirement when compared to the
figure that was promoted in the previous version of the plan, which was 1,125 dwellings per
annum. A reduction of 285 units per annum is not justified, particularly as the Council
considered the figure to be sound and fully justified.
4.6 Barton Willmore have prepared a report which considers the housing need within Calderdale
Council, on behalf of a consortium of housebuilders including Barratt and David Wilson Homes,
and a copy is attached to these representations at Appendix 1.
4.7 In summary, the report concludes the following:
• The Council’s housing target of 12,600 (840 hpa) is based on the standard method for
calculating local housing need, however, the 840 hpa figure is based on indicative figures
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 6 September 2018Section 6 – Planning for Growth
published by Government on September 2017, therefore they do not account for th e 2016-
based household projections;
• The decision to progress with a 840 hpa figure was taken by members at a Cabinet
meeting in February 2018, despite officers advising that between 976 and 1,018 hpa
would be a more suitable figure to take account of econo mic growth aspirations;
• Government have confirmed that the steps for calculating the standard methodology may
be amended following publication of the 2016 -based household projections on 20 th
September 2018. Until further clarity is provided on this matter, the Council’s housing
figure cannot be relied on;
• It is clear from the policies within the Local Plan that Calderdale Council have clear
aspirations to support economic growth, which is reflected by the proposal to alloca te 97
hectares of land for employment to support 8,295 (full-time equivalent) jobs;
• The Council’s updated SHMA, published in May 2018, concludes that in order to support
the baseline job growth of the West Yorkshire Regional Economic Model (REM), 1,001 hpa
would be required;
• The SHMA Update also confirmed that 1,129 hpa would be required to meet the ‘policy -
on’ job growth calculated to support the Leeds City Region Local Enterprise Partnership
and included in the Local Plan (8,295 FTE jobs);
• Furthermore the 2018 SHMA Update confirmed a ne ed for 965 hpa in order to deal with
backlog and newly forming affordable housing need over the Plan period ;
• In this context, the Council’s own evidence base confirms how the proposed housing
target in Policy SD3 of the CLP (840 hpa) would fail to support the economic growth set
out in policy SD4 (97ha of land and 8,295 FTE jobs) and would fail to deliver the
affordable housing need determined by the 2015 SHMA.
4.8 The overarching conclusion of the report is that as a minimum the Council’s housing target
should be 1,129 hpa, in order to meet the aspirations of the Leeds City Region LEP.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 7 September 2018Section 9 – Sites for Housing
5.0 SECTION 9 – SITES FOR HOUSING
5.1 It is noted that Table 6.10 of the Plan sets out the distribution of housing throughout the plan
period, both in terms of the geographical spread and the method of delivery i.e. allocations,
planning permissions or windfall.
5.2 The information indicates that the Council are only proposing to allocate new homes in
settlements in tiers 1-4 of the settlement hierarchy, with growth in all settle ments below this
restricted. Whilst it is acknowledged that a large proportion of development should be
concentrated in the most sustainable locations, it is short sighted to prevent small settlements
from growing as well, as additional growth helps to ma intain local services and facilities.
Allowing settlements to grow and deliver new homes is a key component of sustainable
development, as new homes enable a greater prospect of delivering mixed communities, with a
range of age groups, families and elderly people forming the community.
5.3 The Council’s current approach will lead to the stagnation of smaller settlements, which
generally have aging populations and there is a requirement for a greater variety of age groups in
such settlements.
5.4 In addition, the small growth in such areas can help to maintain the viability of such
communities, a fact that is acknowledged by the Government in the Framework.
5.5 It is also noted that the Council do not propose to allocate any safeguarded land, which means
that they are a significant risk of not delivering their housing requirement should allocated sites
fail to deliver. Land should be safeguarded to ensure that other land can come forward if
necessary and is not unduly restricted by planning policy, such as Green Belt.
Policy SD7 – Allocated Housing Sites
5.6 As set out in the site-specific representations prepared by PB Planning, our Client supports the
allocation of their land at Halifax Road, Brighouse, reference LP1095.
5.7 It is noted that the Council are proposing to deliver two new garden suburbs adjacent to
Brighouse, site references LP1451 and LP1463. Although our Client does not object to the
principle of garden suburbs they have significant concerns about the ability for these sites to
deliver the full allocation within the plan period.
5.8 The Council have prepared a Housing Technical Paper (2018), which includes a housing trajectory
at Appendix 3 for all proposed housing sites within the Local Plan. The Council’s approach to the
trajectory for the two garden suburbs is flawed in a number of ways. It appears that the Council
have simply started at year 15 of the trajectory and back filled this to ensure that the
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 8 September 2018Section 9 – Sites for Housing
development is delivered within the plan period. This then results in unrealistic build -out rates,
particularly in respect of site LP1463, which the Council believe will deliver 222 units per annum
from year 7 of the plan onwards. The Council state in the Housing Technical Paper that for
developments of 150 units and above a build -out rate of 55 dwellings per annum is applied. This
therefore means that in order for the annual build out rate of 222 dwellings to be met, four
housebuilders would need to be on-site. This is extremely optimistic and from our experience it
is unlikely that four housebuilders would be on a site of circa 2,000 units. A more realistic
number would be 2 to 3 housebuilders, which would lead to a clear reduction in housing deliver y
per annum and would mean the allocation would not be fully delivered within the plan period .
5.9 Recent evidence prepared by Savills (2014), which assessed the delivery rates and lead -in times
associated with sites for 500 units or more concluded that such sites generally deliver up to a
maximum of 120 dwellings per annum, where there are positive market conditions . As such the
Council’s assertion that 222 dwellings per annum is unrealistic and does not appear to be based
on any sound evidence.
5.10 In addition to the above, the Council have made no account for the step up in delivery that will
take place on sites of this scale. The Council have presumed that the delivery at the two garden
suburbs will jump from 0 to 140 and 222 respectively within a year. This is not realistic and there
should be a step up in delivery. The Savills document found that such sites would generally
deliver circa 60 units in the first year before stepping up to 100 over the next couple of years
before stepping up again to 120. Unless the Council can robustly demonstrate that 140 dwellings
for site LP1451 will be delivered in year 1 and 222 dwellings for site LP1463, the Council should
introduce a step up in delivery as this is more realistic and achievable.
5.11 The Savills report also states that it takes on average 4 years from the submission of an outline
planning application to the delivery of new homes. Given the Plan will not be adopted until 2019
at the earliest, new homes are unlikely to be delivered on either of the garden suburbs until
2023/24, which means there would be 9 years until the end of the plan period. If realistic and
achievable build-out rates and a step up in delivery are added to the garden suburbs as suggested
below, this would lead to a significant shortfall in delivery, clearly justifying the requirement for
additional new homes:
Table 5.1 – Barton Willmore Suggested Trajectory
Site Ref: Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 Total
LP1451 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 137 1257
(Council
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 9 September 2018Section 9 – Sites for Housing
Trajectory)
LP1451 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 100 100 100 100 100 120 120 120 920
(BW
Trajectory)
LP1463 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 1998
(Council
Trajectory)
LP1463 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 100 100 100 100 100 120 120 120 920
(BW
Trajectory)
5.12 According to the Council the two garden suburbs will deliver a combine d total of 3,255 dwellings
all within the plan period. However, it is has been demonstrated above that this is unrealistic
and there will be a significant shortfall in delivery within the Plan period. From our assessment,
which is based on robust evidence of past lead -in times and delivery rates for urban extensions,
only 1,840 units are likely to be delivered, leaving a shortfall of 1,415 units.
5.13 It is however accepted that the research alluded to above is generic in nature and any site
specific evidence would be given greater weight in an assessment of the sites deliverability. It is
understood discussions have taken place with the site promoters and they are confident they can
deliver 1,300 homes per site over the plan period, albeit this will need to be demonstrated with
robust evidence.
5.14 In light of these discussions it is considered that the two garden suburbs could del iver a
combined total of 2,600 units as a best case scenario, however , this still leaves a deficit of 655
units, demonstrating that the Council’s assumptions are not accurate and additional sites will be
required to make up this shortfall.
5.15 This cannot simply be ignored and the Council can not ignore the clear evidence that the housing
trajectory is unrealistic. The driving factor with the local plan should be that the housing target
is met through genuinely deliverable sites, and not about shoe horning sites into the trajectory
which clearly aren’t deliverable, or in the case of the garden suburbs, will not deliver anywhere
near the level of homes the Council have presumed within the plan period. A much better
approach would be to allocate additional sites that can comfortably be del ivered within the Plan
period.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 10 September 2018Section 9 – Sites for Housing
5.16 PB Planning have undertaken a deliverability assessment of the proposed housing allocations in
the Halifax, Brighouse, Shelf and Elland settlement areas and this adds further weight to the
concerns regarding the deliverability of a number of the proposed housing allocations. Indeed,
the Council’s total number of units in these areas is 7,826 and PB Planning concluded that only
4,949 can realistically be delivered in the plan period, which equates to a shortfall of 2,877 units.
5.17 The site specific representations prepared by PB Planning demonstrate that our Clients land
interests at Shelf (LP1462), Greetland (LP0177), Bradshaw (LP0773) and Hollywell Green
(LP0982) are all suitable and deliverable and have no constraints that woul d prevent them
coming forward. More importantly, they are all deliverable within the plan period.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 11 September 2018Section 10 – Addressing Climate Change
6.0 SECTION 10 – ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE
Policy CC1 – Climate Change
6.1 The policy seeks to ensure that new development proposals contribute to mitigating the effects
of climate change. In principle this is welcomed by our Client, however it is noted that the policy
makes no reference to such mitigation measures being subject to feasibility. As such, our Client
objects to the contents of the policy as it is not considered to be sound as it is not effective or
positively planned, therefore fails to meet the tests as soundness as set out in paragraph 35 of
the Revised Framework.
6.2 Whilst providing climate change mitigation is important, this should not lead to situations where
it jeopardises suitable developments from coming forward. We would advise that an additional
caveat is added to the policy which states that the contribution towards climate change
mitigation should be subject to feasibility.
Policy CC6 – Assessment of Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Development Proposals
6.3 Part 3 of the policy sets out the Council’s aspirations that all larger scale development should
consider the opportunities to provide different and innovative heating to occupier s. The policy
defines larger scale developments as being of 1,000sqm or 10 dwellings or more. It is noted that
the policy requires such developments to connect to an existing district heating network, or to
provide a site wide district heating network se rved by a low carbon heat source , where
technically viable. It is not simply a case of technical viability, but also one of financial viability
and this should be acknowledged within the policy. Our client objects to the policy as currently
drafted as it is unsound and does not meet the tests of soundness as set out at paragraph 35.
6.4 The policy also requires all development proposals to demonstrate how sites have been designed
to allow for connection to a future district heating network, in areas where dis trict heating is
currently not viable, but where there is potential for future district heating network . Our Client
considers this requirement to be unreasonable as they should not have to plan for a proposal that
may never come forward. As noted above this may also lead to financial viability issues which
could affect the delivery of the authority’s development needs.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 12 September 2018Section 12 – Health and Well Being
7.0 SECTION 12 – HEALTH AND WELL BEING
Policy HW2 – Health Impact Assessment
7.1 The policy requires a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to be pro vided for residential developments
of 30 or more units. Our Client objects to the requirements of this policy for a number of
reasons, which are outlined below.
7.2 The requirement for a HIA should be dealt with via the Council’s local validation checklist and not
through a specific planning policy. Our Client therefore objects to the policy on the basis that it
is not effective or consistent with the Framework, and we would advise that it is deleted.
7.3 In addition, the policy states that a HIA should address issues such as physical activity, diet and
nutrition, and alcohol and drug use. This is overly onerous and there is no indication as to how
such assessments would be considered by the Council and the guidance which they should
follow. Many of these issues outlined above cannot realistically be controlled by developers once
they have completed a site and the properties are purchased and occupied by private individuals.
There is no way that they can control issues such as diet, exercise and drug and alcohol use. This
policy should be deleted from the draft Local Plan as it is unsound.
7.4 Notwithstanding our Clients overarching view that Policy HW2 should be deleted, if it is retained,
it is currently too prescriptive in terms of the level of detail that is required in a HIA.
7.5 Our Client is supportive of a strategic policy, such as Policy HW1, that seeks to improve the
health of Calderdale residents, however, Policy HW2 is unjustified, overly onerous and will not be
effective.
Policy HW3 – Well Being
7.6 Our Client objects to Policy HW3 and the intention to introduce 20mph zones into all future
developments. All planning applications should be determined on their own merits and there is
no justification for the introduction of a standardised speed limit across all developments. This
is a matter to be determined by the highways authority and not the planning authority and as
such should be deleted from the policy, as it is unsound and fails to meet the tests of paragraph
35 of the Revised Framework.
7.7 In addition, we would question the validity of incorporating allotments and garden plots within
major residential developments and food production should be down to personal discretion and
not imposed as a specific requirement within developments.
Policy HW5 – Sustainable Local Food Production
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 13 September 2018Section 12 – Health and Well Being
7.8 Our Client strongly objects to the contents of Policy HW5, which states that all new residential
developments shall include gardens or communal areas to support household food production.
7.9 This policy is not workable or practical within major housing developments a nd should be deleted
from the Plan. The Council do not provide any evidence to demonstrate why there is demand for
the provision of such areas within residential developments, and as such these aspirations are
not justified. As such the policy is unsound and fails the tests of soundness set out in paragraph
35 of the Revised Framework.
7.10 There are a number of practical matters that have not been considered by the Council, such as
whether such plots can only be used by residents of that particular estat e or if wider members of
the public could use the allotments. In addition, who would manage such areas, if they formed
part of a management agreement paid for by residents, would all residents have to contribute to
this despite getting no discernible bene fits.
7.11 This is a poorly conceived policy that should be deleted from the Plan.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 14 September 2018Section 13 – Infrastructure and Master Planning
8.0 SECTION 13 – INFRASTRUCTURE AND MASTER PLANNING
Policy IM4 – Sustainable Travel
8.1 Our Client objects to inclusion of Policy IM4 in the Local Plan as it is considered to be
unnecessary and is not justified, therefore failing to meet the tests of soundness outlined in
paragraph 35 of the Revised Framework.
8.2 The Policy effectively repeats the requirements of Policy IM5 and should therefore be deleted.
Notwithstanding this, if the policy is retained, there are several criteria which are unacceptable
and should be removed.
8.3 The introduction of a blanket 20mph speed limit for all new developments is unjustified and is
not a matter to be dealt with through planning po licies, it is for the discretion of the highways
authority on a case by case basis. Furthermore, there is no evidence or justification to
demonstrate how limiting the speed of motor vehicles, encourages the use of sustainable modes
of transport.
8.4 The policy is too prescriptive, as for example, it seeks to ensure that showers and locker space
are incorporated in employment developments.
8.5 The inclusion of the following sentence is unacceptable and should be deleted – “new homes
should have provision of electric vehicle charging points provided at their parking spaces ”. This
is because it may not be feasible or safe to have an electric charging point for every dwelling or
parking space.
Policy IM5 – Ensuring Development Supports Sustainable Travel
8.6 The Policy states that all new development should have regard to public transport accessibility
and the first line of the policy states “proposals should be located within the urban areas or
associated with a village inset in the Green Belt”. Th e location of future developments is a
strategic matter and it is unnecessary to include this within a policy which seeks to encourage
the use of sustainable modes of travel.
8.7 Also of concern is the fact the policy states that all new developments will ideally be located
within 400m walking distance of a bus stop and 750m of a railway station . This is too prescriptive
and this ‘pass or fail’ approach is unacceptable and unsound, as there are a number of other
factors that should be considered such as the number of services, frequency and ability to
connect to other services.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 15 September 2018Section 13 – Infrastructure and Master Planning
8.8 This policy is unsound as currently d rafted for the reasons outlined above and consideration
should be given to rewording the policy to include other considerations in terms of what defin es
public transport accessibility.
Policy IM6 – Telecommunications and Broadband
8.9 Our Client supports Policy IM6 which encourages the delivery of high-speed broadband within
new housing developments. Barratt and David Wilson Homes have a national cont ract with Virgin
Media to provide high quality broadband for all of their developments.
Policy IM7 – Master Planning of Housing Sites
8.10 The policy states that masterplans will be required for all strategic sites of 500 units or more,
and for allocated housing sites of less than 500 units, the Council require a Design and Access
Statement to include evidence that the criteria listed in the policy have been taken into account.
8.11 Firstly, it should be made clear within the policy that not al l criteria will be of relevance to
housing developments which are smaller scale. Developments which exceed 500 units are not
directly comparable to developments of circa 100 units for example, and it is unreaso nable to
impose the same criteria. A more appropriate way to approach this matter would be to agree
through pre-application discussions what is required on a case by case basis rather th an
including an overarching prescriptive policy within the plan.
8.12 Notwithstanding the above, in terms of the criteria, the Council should not impose the
requirement of a phasing plan, as in the case of smaller scale developments, they are often built
out in a single phase. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by an implementation plan and this
requires clarification.
8.13 As commented on other policies, the Council should delete the requirement for a 20mph speed
limit within all new developments. In addition, one criteria states “an assessment of the impact
of the development on existing and planned infrastructure, and i dentification of new
infrastructure requirements resulting from the development”. This criterion, if retained, should
be clearer, as it is not the responsibility of a developer to identify infrastructure requirements in
respect of education facilities. However, it is acknowledged that developers wo uld need to
identified any potential highways infrastructure improvements that may be required as part of
their development.
8.14 As noted elsewhere within these representations, the reference to the inclusion o f food
production facilities are not suitable in many residential developments, and should be deleted.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 16 September 2018Section 13 – Infrastructure and Master Planning
8.15 The policy as currently drafted is unsound as it is not justified or effective and therefore fails to
meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the Revised Framework. It imposes a
number of criteria on proposals of 500 units or more, but also expects these to be addressed on
smaller scale sites, and this is not acceptable. In addition, the policy repeats much of what is
outlined in other policies within the Local Plan and is therefore unnecessary.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 17 September 2018Section 14 – Employment and the Economy
9.0 SECTION 14 – EMPLOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Policy EE1 – Safeguarding Existing Employment Areas, Land and Premises
9.1 Our Client fully supports part 1 (ii) of the policy which acknowledges that employment sites can
be used for alternative purposes where it is demonstrated that they are no longer viable for
employment purposes.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 18 September 2018Section 16 – Housing
10.0 SECTION 16 – HOUSING
Policy HS1 – Non-Allocated Sites
10.1 Our Client welcomes a policy that supports the delivery of housing on sites that are not allocated
within the CLP. The policy states that such sites must be sustainably located and this is defined
within the supporting text as being sites which are within 400m walking distance o f a bus stop
with a high frequency bus route or 800m of a railway station.
10.2 The Council are utilising too narrow a scope of what defines sustainability and this approach is
likely to exclude a wide number of suitable sites from coming forward under this pol icy. The
Revised Framework is clear that sustainable development has three strands – economic, social
and environmental and there should be considered to be interdependent.
10.3 Proposals of non-allocated sites should not therefore be dismissed if they do not meet the
Council’s criteria above, rather they should be considered each case on its own merits and the
three elements of sustainability.
10.4 As an example, our Clients land interests at Soaper Lane, Shelf (ref: LP 1462) are located within
close proximity to a health centre, primary school, a nursery and a supermarket. Indeed, all are
considered to be within a comfortable walking distance. However, the site is not within 800m of
a railway station or 400m of a bus stop. According to Policy HS1, this makes the site
unsustainable, which is clearly not the case.
10.5 As such, our Client objects to the wording of the Policy as currently drafted as it is unsound and
does not accord with the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the Revised Framework.
The policy is not positively planned or effective for the reasons outlined above.
Policy HS3 – Housing Mix
10.6 It is noted that the Council are seeking to ensure that a mixture of housing types and tenure are
provided as part of future housing developments. Our Client is generally supportive of the
flexible approach within the policy to determining an appropriate housing mix.
10.7 Part ii) of the policy states “proposals for housing developments of 10 or more dwellings will be
expected to provide for a mix of housing in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability; and
additionally, proposed housing developments of 30 or m ore dwellings should be accompanied by
a statement setting out how the mix of housing will assist in meeting local needs”.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 19 September 2018Section 16 – Housing
10.8 It is unclear why the Council have determined that developments of 30 units or more have to
provide a statement regarding the propo sed mix, and this should be justified with evidence within
the supporting text of the policy.
Policy HS5 – Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding
10.9 It is noted that on sites of 100 dwellings or more the Council are proposing that 5% of the overall
capacity will be provided as serviced plots for self or custom build need. Our Client strongly
objects to this policy on a number of grounds.
10.10 Our Client is one of the largest housebuilders in the country and they are very experienced in the
delivery of major new housing schemes. They have genuine concerns regarding the proposal to
include a percentage of self-build plots on major housing developments as this would simply not
work in practise. Large developments can have anywhere between 1 to 3 developers on site and
the potential involvement of an additional private individuals could have repercussions on a
number of issues such as the timing of delivery, cashflow and equalisation, as well as potential
legal agreements. In addition, the way in which Section 106 contributions and CIL are calculated
would be complicated and it is unclear who’s responsibility this wou ld be in terms of making the
relevant payments. Self-build plots are usually on small plots of land that do not require any, or
very limited, contributions and it is unclear if they would have to contribute to the obligations
associated with the wider site. There is also likely to be uncertainty around conditions and who
would be responsible for discharging them. For example, if a developer obtained outline
planning permission for the whole site, would they be responsible for discharging conditions
specific to the self-build plot.
10.11 In addition to the above, we would question what evidence the Council have to demonstrate that
there is a demand for self-build plots within major housing developments. Without any evidence
to underpin this requirement, it is our Clients opinion that the policy is unsound as it is not
justified or effective and therefore fails to meet the tests of soundness at paragraph 35 of the
Revised Framework.
Policy HS6 – Affordable Housing
10.12 The policy sets out the Council’s aspiratio ns for the delivery of affordable housing throughout the
District. The Council have identified four different zones which have a different affordable
housing requirement, with the highest provision of 35% being required in Zone A and the lowest
in Zone D of 20%.
10.13 Barratt and David Wilson Homes have been active within Calderdale over recent years and have
delivered a number of new homes and have a very good understanding of the housing market
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 20 September 2018Section 16 – Housing
areas within the District. They have land interests in all four of the affordable housing zones and
they object to the level of provision that is being required by the Council. The provision of 35%
in Zone A and 30% in Zone B are particularly excessive and do not reflect the market area in
which they are located, which in turn will lead to viability issues, which could impact the
deliverability of new housing. If the affordable housing provision is retained as proposed, it is
likely that future planning applications will be accompanied by viability apprai sals, which
demonstrate that sites are not financially via ble due to the high level of affordable housing
provision. This generally slows down the planning application process which has a knock on
effect in terms of the delivery of housing.
10.14 It is noted that a Viability Assessment has been undertaken by GVA on behalf of the Council,
which forms part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. The assessment states at paragraph
6.39 that “just over a quarter (28%) of the housing allocations are viable and generate land
values in excess of the minimum benchmark land values after the application of Policy HS6.
Whilst both policies (HS4 and HS6) contain suitable viability clauses an overall reduction in
affordable housing requirements may be necessary, especially if a viable CIL is to be introduced”.
10.15 The assessment then considers the additional impacts that would arise if the Council’s draft CIL
charging schedule was included and they conclude that this would impact upon viability in a
number of zones, for example in Brighouse, which falls within Zone C, it is recommended that
affordable housing provision is reduced to 15%. Despite this clear advice in the Council’s own
evidence, this has been ignored.
10.16 It is also our understanding that the Viability Assessment does not account for additional Section
106 contributions that may be required as part of residential developments, such as education
and public open space contributions. If these were also factored in, it raises further questions
about the suitability of the affordable housing provision which the Council are seeking.
10.17 Our Client are committed to delivering new homes in Calderdale, as demonstrated by recent
developments in the area. However, as currently drafted the affordable housing requirements
are likely to create serious viability issues and it is therefore requested that the Council give
further consideration to a reduce figure moving forward.
10.18 The Council’s own evidence base suggests that the level of affordable housing provision is
unrealistic and should be reduced and for this to be ignored is unacceptable. The policy is
unsound as the currently drafted and fails to meet the tests of soundness outlined in paragraph
35 of the Revised Framework, as it is clearly not justified, effective or positively planned.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 21 September 2018Section 17 – Built Environment
11.0 SECTION 17 – BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Policy BT1 – High quality, inclusive design
11.1 Part 3 of the policy states that all new residential development will be expected to incorporate
sustainable design and construction principles. Our Client always seeks to construct their
developments to the highest standards, in accordance with relevant Building Regulations.
Buildings Regulations are consistently updated in order to ensure that new buildings are built as
efficiently as possible. As such, it is not considered necessary to include this policy within the
Local Plan, as it is effectively covered through Building Regulations. It should be noted that
Barratt and David Wilson Homes are the only major housebuilder committed to applying Buildi ng
for Life 12 principles to all their developments, which demonstrates their dedication to delivering
high quality developments.
11.2 Part 3 (a) (i) of the policy states that new developments should consider the “principles
associated with Passive Solar Design in the design and layout of development and to facilitate
the provision of “2050-ready” homes”. It is acknowledged at paragraph 17.20 of the supporting
text to the policy that “2050-ready homes” is not Government policy. It should not therefore form
part of the Policy BT1.
11.3 In summary, this policy is unsound and unnecessary and should be deleted from the Plan.
Notwithstanding the above, if the policy is retained, the wording in respect of the Design Review
should be revised as it states that deve lopments “that are likely to have a significant landscape
or townscape impact” will be subject to Design Review. Whether a scheme is taken to Design
Review is at the discretion of the applicant, and as such, the wording should be revised to
encourage such schemes to be taken to Design Review. In addition, the way in which the policy is
worded implies that any development which goes to Design Review has an adverse impact and
this will not necessarily be the case.
Policy BT2 – Privacy, Daylighting and Amenity Space
11.4 Our Client supports the inclusion of Policy BT2, which seeks to ensure that developments do not
lead to significant adverse impacts on privacy, daylighting and private amenity space of adjacent
residents. They are committed to delivering developments that ensure that such issues do not
arise.
Policy BT3 – Landscaping
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 22 September 2018Section 17 – Built Environment
11.5 Our Client supports the aspirations of the policy to deliver good quality hard and soft landscaping
as part of development proposals. However, there are concerns with the policy as currently
drafted.
11.6 For example, a caveat should be added to the policy to state that hard and soft landscaping
should be delivered “where possible”, as there are instances where such proposals can
significantly reduce the developable area of a site, thus reducing the ability to efficiently deliver
housing. Furthermore, the policy should be revised to acknowledge that detailed landscape
proposals can not always be provided at outline stage, and therefore may need to be conditioned
to be agreed through reserved matters applications. A layout often is not fixed until after outline
planning permission is granted and the policy needs to acknowledge this.
11.7 In addition, the policy seeks to encourage the inclusion of land for local food p roduction within
development schemes. Whilst our Client does not object to this in principle, this should not be a
requirement over and above public open space provision. For example, if land is provided for
allotments, this should be deducted from the p ublic open space provision.
Policy BT4 – The Design and Layout of Highways and Accesses
11.8 Our Client advises that additional text is added to Policy BT4 which states that the local planning
authority will endeavour to consult with their S38 team during the course of a planning
application process, to ensure that highways matters agree d during the planning process are not
subsequently challenged by other parties within the Council.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 23 September 2018Summary and Conclusions
12.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
12.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of our client, Barratt and David Wilson
Homes, who have significant land interests within the District and the comments are to be read in
conjunction with the site specific representations to their various land interests in Calderdale,
which have bene prepared by PB Planning.
12.2 Whilst our Client welcomes the Council’s proposals to prepare a new Local Plan, they have a
number of concerns regarding the content of the Publication Draft document. At present it is
therefore considered that the Plan is unsound as currently drafted and does not meet the tests
set out at paragraph 35 of the Revised Framework. Their comments on Development
Management policies are provided with the intention of helping to speed up the decision making
process, and to remove any unnecessary complications. This is help to ensure the speedy
delivery of much needed housing within the District.
12.3 Our Client strongly objects to the proposing housing target that is being proposed by the Council
as set out in Policy SD3. The annual housing target of 8 40 dwellings is significantly lower than
the figure set out in the previous version of the plan, as well as being lower than the figure set
out within the Cabinet Paper that was presented to members in February 2018 . As such, the 840
dwellings per annum figure does not represent the Council’s full objectively assessed housing
need and the requirements of the Framework and the PPG have not been met.
12.4 This is a fundamental issue to the entire local plan and as curren tly drafted it cannot be
considered to be sound as it is not effective, justified, positively prepared or in accordance with
national planning guidance, and as such fails to meet the tests of paragraph 35 of the Revised
Framework.
12.5 In addition to the above, Barton Willmore have prepared a Technical Paper to assess the findings
in the Council’s SHMA and it concluded that a housing target of between 9 65 and 1,129 dwellings
would represent the Councils full OAN.
12.6 Our Client has other concerns regarding the contents of the plan, including the ability of two
garden suburb sites in Brighouse to deliver the full allocation within the Plan Period. The
concern is that this is not a small amount of under delivery, the Council are using very unrealistic
build-out rates without out step-up in delivery, meaning a significant shortfall against the target.
As such it is strongly recommended that additional sites are allocated to account for the
shortfall. It has been demonstrated through the site -specific representations prepared by PB
Planning that our Clients land interests are all suitable and deliverable and could deliver housing
within the first 5 years of the Plan.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 24 September 2018Summary and Conclusions
12.7 Also of concern are Policy HS5 and Policy HS6, which relate to the provision of self -build plots
within housing developments of 100 units or more and the level of affordable housing provision,
which appears to disregard the Council’s own evidence. Our Client objects to the contents of
both policies as they fail to satisfy the tests of sound ness set out in paragraph 35 of the
Framework and are therefore unsound.
12.8 We welcome the opportunity to outline these in further written representations and also in verbal
representations at the Examination in Public in the near future.
29481/A5/LPREPS/CA 25 September 2018APPENDIX 1 Barton Willmore Objectively Assessed Housing Need Technical Paper
CALDERDALE COUNCIL
HOUSING NEED TECHNICAL NOTE
28 September 2018CALDERDALE COUNCIL
HOUSING NEED TECHNICAL NOTE
September 2018
Project Ref: 29424/A5/DU
Status: Final Draft
Issue/Rev: 03
Date: 28 September 2018
Prepared by: DU
Checked by: DM/SN/LJ/JD
Authorised by: SN/LJ
Barton Willmore LLP
The Observatory
Southfleet Road
Ebbsfleet
Dartford
DA10 0DF
Tel: (01322) 374660 Ref: 29424/A5/DU
E-mail: Developmenteconomics@bartonwillmore.co.uk Date: 28 September 2018
COPYRIGHT
The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written
consent of Barton Willmore LLP.
All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetable oil based inks.Contents
CONTENTS
PAGE NO
1.0 INTRODUCTION 01
2.0 NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 03
3.0 CALDERDALE COUNCIL: HOUSING NEED EVIDENCE BASE REVIEW 12
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 18Calderdale Local Plan – Housing Need Technical Note Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Housing Need Technical Note has been prepared on behalf of a consortium of clients who
have development interests in the local authority area of Calderdale. The Note responds to the
Council’s public consultation on the Publication Draft of the Calderdale Local Plan (CLP), which
runs from 10 August 2018 to the 24 September 2018, and specifically responds to the overall level
of housing proposed by the Council and whether this will achieve the objectives of the CLP.
1.2 The CLP proposes a total of 12,600 new homes over a 15-year Plan period (2018/19-2032/33),
which equates to an average of 840 homes per annum. This figure has been drawn from the
Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) proposed standard method
for calculating local housing need, the method for which was published for consultation in
September 2017 as part of MHCLG’s wider ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’
consultation, and subsequently adopted in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF,
24 July 2018).
1.3 The September 2017 MHCLG consultation included indicative standard method figures for each
local authority in England, the figure of which for Calderdale has been used by the Council for the
proposed housing provision target of the CLP. However, these indicative figures have changed
since September 2017 due to the publication by ONS of new affordability ratios (26 April 2018)
and household projections (20 September 2018). These changes result in a standard method
figure of only 566 homes per annum for Calderdale.
1.4 However following publication of the new household projections, it has become clear that the
standard method results in significantly lower housing growth nationally than it did when the
indicative figure was published in September 2017. MHCLG have therefore given a strong
indication that the methodology of the standard method will change in the coming weeks and
months. In the context of these likely changes neither the standard method figure calculated in
September 2017 (as set out in the CLP) or the figure calculated as of September 2018 can be
relied on.
1.5 This Note considers the Council’s use of the indicative housing need figure for Calderdale published
by MHCLG in September 2017, in the context of the CLP’s vision and objectives for growth over
the Plan period. This analysis is set in the context of the Council’s recent (May 2018) ‘Updated
Review of Objectively Assessed Housing Needs in Calderdale’ which considered the level of
housing need required to support economic growth and affordable housing need.
29424/A5 1 September 2018Calderdale Local Plan – Housing Need Technical Note Introduction
1.6 A further important consideration concerns the timing of the CLP’s submission for examination.
The most recent information on the Council’s web site states that the Local Plan will be submitted
in “early 2019” 1. If the Plan is submitted on or before the 24 January 2019, housing need will
need to be determined against the Objective Assessment of Housing Need (OAN) required under
the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). If the Plan is submitted after this date, the
standard method will apply. It is therefore important to understand what the OAN for Calderdale
is likely to be for Calderdale in the event that the Plan is submitted on or before 24 January 2019.
1.7 This Note is structured as follows:
• National and local planning policy context;
• Calderdale Council: housing need evidence review;
• Housing need conclusions for Calderdale.
1 https://www.calderdale.gov.uk/v2/residents/environment-planning-and-building/planning/planning-policy/local-plan#timetable
29424/A5 2 September 2018Calderdale Local Plan – Housing Need Technical Note National and Local Planning Policy Context
2.0 NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
i) Introduction
2.1 This initial section of our Technical Note summarises the current position in respect of how the
level of local housing need should be calculated. We also consider what is proposed by the
Calderdale Local Plan (CLP) in the context of the Plan’s aspirations for growth.
ii) National Planning Policy – Housing Need
2.2 The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 24 July 2018, and
incorporates the standard method for calculating local housing need. This standard method was
initially consulted on in the ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’ consultation in
September 2017 and applies immediately for the purposes of planning applications, thereby
replacing the Objective Assessment of Overall Housing Need (OAN) which was required under the
2012 NPPF and its accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
2.3 Notwithstanding the introduction of the standard method with immediate effect for applications,
the standard method is subject to a 6-month transition period in respect of Local Plan
preparation.
2.4 Paragraph 214 of the revised NPPF confirms that the policies of the previous 2012 NPPF will apply
for all Local Plans submitted for examination on or before the 24 January 2019. The CLP is
currently due for submission to the Secretary of State in “early 2019.” 2
Without confirmation of
the Plan’s submission date, it is therefore important to understand what the housing need figure
under both scenarios could be, and to consider whether the figures will support the growth policies
of the draft Plan.
2.5 This means that Local Plans submitted before 24 January 2019 will remain subject to the previous
OAN method, which must take account of demographic trends, economic growth, and seek to
address affordability issues in line with the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment
(HEDNA) section of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which supported the 2012 NPPF.
2 https://www.calderdale.gov.uk/v2/residents/environment-planning-and-building/planning/planning-policy/local-plan#timetable
29424/A5 3 September 2018You can also read
