Respond

To respond to the Regulation 19 Consultation, you can use the SWLP portal or fill out a form. The SWLP team have published a detailed guidance note with further information. You can only comment on whether the content of the plan is legally compliant and whether it is sound. To be sound it needs to be ‘effective’, ‘justfied’ and ‘consistent with national policy’ – all terms which are defined in paragraph 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework which is extracted here.

The consultation period is Tuesday 21st July to Tuesday 8th September. The Parish Council is currently preparing its response.

This briefing note gives an overview of areas that we are looking at.

Here are three key aspects that we have already raised with Warwick District Councillors at their meeting on 15th July:

1. The Local Plan is not effective

The SWLP Viability Report finds that the large majority of strategic sites are unviable. Only three sites – which represent just one-fifth of the homes proposed in strategic locations – are considered viable and even these are rated “Amber” highlighting significant constraints to delivery.

The Viability Report recommends further work in at least nine areas, including further strategic site reviews, infrastructure calculations and the creation of delivery strategies and masterplans to explain how comprehensive development will be delivered. 

The planning authority says that “it will continue to refine its understanding of viability before submission.” However, Regulation 19 is not about refining viability. At this point, the planning authority must be confident that the proposed sites are deliverable and viable. The evidence strongly shows otherwise and the Local Plan therefore fails a key test of soundness.

2. The Local Plan is not justified

There are significant flaws in the Green Belt Review carried out for SWLP by Arup.  The assessments of land parcels around LEA 1 and LEA 2, which categorised the land as Grey Belt, are inaccurate and misleading.

We commissioned an independent review from Land Use Consultants, another national planning consultancy. Their assessment concluded that the land north of Leamington is Green Belt, not Grey Belt.

When we asked why their findings differed so greatly from Arup’s, they identified a critical methodological issue. Arup’s broad land parcels include developed land, which reduces the perceived openness of the areas being evaluated. In effect, the green belt has been ‘diluted’. These technical findings are buried within hundreds of pages of documentation and have received little scrutiny. As a result, the term “Grey Belt” is now being widely adopted despite LEA 1 and LEA 2 being wholly Green Belt and other alternatives have not been transparently assessed.

3. The Local Plan is not consistent with national policy

In respect of agricultural land, the Local Plan is not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or the Land Use Framework published in March.  LEA 1 and LEA 2 are Grade 2 and Grade 3a farmland, which means they are classified as Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. LEA 2 forms a significant part of a commercially viable, professionally-managed tenant farm which grows high quality wheat and oats for major national manufacturers, alongside sustainable cover-cropping under the Sustainable Farming Initiative. Everything operates to “Red Tractor” certified standards.

Paragraph 180 of the NPPF requires decision-makers to give significant weight to the economic and other benefits of BMV land and to direct development away from it wherever possible. This is a material planning policy requirement, not a discretionary consideration.

The Land Use Framework states unequivocally that urban expansion is not appropriate on England’s most productive agricultural land and reinforces the NPPF’s approach of directing development away from BMV land. It also recognises that tenant farmers face significant barriers to business resilience and profitability and commits to ensuring that future land use policy supports the tenanted sector.

The allocation of these sites therefore runs counter to both the NPPF and the Land Use Framework. Additionally, strict sequential preference has not been evidenced in respect of the decision to develop this land.   

Summary

The proposed allocation of LEA 1 and LEA 2 requires a thorough review due to incomplete evidence and significant constraints including Green Belt function, heritage assets, agricultural land quality, biodiversity, flood risk, and landscape character.

The absence of a sequential assessment to justify loss of BMV land and the strong Green Belt contribution evidenced by the independent LUC assessment suggest that LEA 1 and 2 is currently an unsound allocation. A Local Plan requires sustainable development in appropriate locations so further rigorous site evaluation should be conducted before proceeding.

[This page is in progress and will be added to over the coming weeks.]