Draft Local Plan Review

Strategic Objectives paras 96 and 102.

Richborough Estates Limited support the approach of the Local Plan Review to promote patterns of development that focus significant growth in locations that are, or can be made, sustainable. Richborough Estates recognise that previously developed land within urban areas should be exploited which is referred to in the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market.

However, given the nature of Solihull Borough, the recognition that opportunities for non-Green Belt development outside the main urban area and the larger settlements are limited is welcomed. Further, even where such opportunities might be claimed to exist then careful consideration is needed as to whether development could proceed without harming the character of existing areas (e.g. 'town cramming', poor quality backland development, loss of open area, reductions in employment opportunities/land, etc.). There are also questions whether such opportunities are deliverable because of constraints associated with, amongst other matters, ownership, legal restrictions, access, trees, ground conditions, viability implications etc.

Using the available evidence base, the Borough Council can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirement and that there are exceptional circumstances associated with delivering the objectively assessed housing need which fully justify amending the Green Belt boundary at appropriate locations. Such an approach is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and the White Paper.

Sequentially, within the Green Belt it is correct to direct growth towards locations that are highly or moderately accessible whether they are greenfield or previously developed sites. Sustainable and accessible locations are those related to public transport corridors (or transport hubs as now referred to in the White Paper) or on the edge of accessible settlements which possess a range of local facilities. The proposed allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Potential Housing Allocation 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4) fully accord with the sequential approach adopted in the Local Plan Review towards directing growth to sustainable locations.

Although superficially attractive, growth on previously developed land in the Green Belt located away from existing public transport corridors or accessible settlements should be resisted because it would fail to deliver sustainable forms of development.

Broad Options for Growth and Development - paras 108 and 109.

Richborough Estates Limited support the broad options for growth and development focusing significant growth in locations that are, or can be made, sustainable as advocated in the Local Plan Review's Strategic Objectives and Guiding Principles.

Using the available evidence base, the Borough Council can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirement and that there are exceptional circumstances associated with delivering the objectively assessed housing need which fully justify amending the Green Belt boundary at the chosen broad locations. Such an approach is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market.

The chosen broad option for growth and development provide a balanced approach to accommodate development by dispersing growth to accessible locations across the Borough rather than placing undue reliance upon one or two strategic locations (e.g. The UK Central Hub Area/HS2). A balanced approach to the distribution of housing growth across the Borough enables the identification of a range of different sizes and types of sites in the emerging Local Plan, including those within both the urban area and the Green Belt.

The broad option also enables the Local Plan Review to identify a wide choice of allocations in different locations across the Borough which can be delivered at the same time thereby both fostering competition which will assist with curbing house price inflation and enhancing the prospects of delivering the required dwellings within the plan period to meet the identified housing needs. These identified needs are related to both the local Solihull housing market and addressing part of the shortfall of suitable and available residential land within the wider Housing Market Area.

The White Paper is also clear that 'Policies in plans should allow a good mix of sites to come forward for development, so that there is choice for consumers, places can grow in ways that are sustainable, and there are opportunities for a diverse construction sector' (paragraph 1.29). The ability to identify a wide range choice of housing allocations increases the potential delivery of a mix of high quality homes, provides the opportunity to widen opportunities for home ownership and promotes the ability to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities of the type sought by the National Planning Policy Framework.

Larger scale housing allocations on the periphery of Solihull, Shirley and other accessible settlements could incorporate the principles of Garden Cities as advocated in the Framework. Such an opportunity also exists through the allocation of land to the West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4 (PHA4)) which is a large site at adjacent to an accessible settlement and located along a public transport corridor, specifically adjacent to a transport hub.

As recorded in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report (January 2017) there are sites available under this approach capable of contributing towards the meeting housing supply within the next 5-years, including land under the control of Richborough Estates at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Potential Housing Allocation 2 (PHA2)) and to the West of Dickens Heath (PHA4). The Frog Lane site could be fully delivered within 5-years from when the site is taken out of the Green Belt. There would be new homes delivered during a 5-year period at Dickens Heath but it would be reasonable to assume that the whole scheme would take between 8-10 years to deliver from the date of the first dwelling being occupied.

At both locations, new homes can readily be delivered utilising existing local services and public transport. The opportunity also exists for investment in new or improved facilities and services for the benefit of both existing and future residents, including a Community Sports Hub at Dickens Heath. Further, and as indicated in the White Paper, there are potential
opportunities for compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land or land within the vicinity of these broad locations.

Where there is an identifiable affordable housing need then Richborough Estates Limited does not object to the principle of delivering affordable housing as part of an inclusive residential development. Accordingly, the principle of Policy P4 is supported. However, Richborough Estates has some constructive comments about the drafting of Policy P4.

By reason of the publication of the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market, the Borough Council will need to reconsider its approach to affordable housing provision, including the 'target' for such homes to be delivered on sites and the provision of starter homes. Based upon Richborough Estate's review of the White Paper it is now likely that the definition of affordable housing may need to change and the overall target reduced to 40%.

On the basis that the affordable housing provision can be the subject of some flexibility, it would be appropriate to express the requirement as 'Contributions will be expected to be made in the form of up-to [40%] of the proposed dwellings being for affordable housing purposes on each development site and this will take into account: ...'

Richborough Estates welcome the realism that some developments, particularly larger scale schemes, either have a higher cost of implementation or are required to deliver other benefits/infrastructure which can affect viability (criteria (iii) and (iv)). These criteria have a direct link to the 'Likely Infrastructure Requirements' column associated with the Potential Housing Allocations listed at Appendix C in the Local Plan Review document (e.g. delivery of new roads or major new community facilities). For reasons of clarity, the flexibility which might be given to the percentage of affordable housing and the precise type and tenure mix provided as part of a development should be included in Policy P4 rather than the supporting text (i.e. incorporate paragraph 194 into policy).

Although not part of the policy, paragraph 200 refers to rental housing for specific sectors of the community, namely aged and disabled people. The inclusion of such specialist types of dwellings as part of the affordable housing provision is supported by Richborough Estates. However, delivery will be dependent upon the registered providers being willing to develop and manage such homes and this needs to be recognised in Policy P4.

Richborough Estates Limited acknowledge that the Solihull SHMA could inform the mix of market housing which might be delivered within the Borough. Richborough Estates welcomes the drafting of Policy P4 which allows for flexibility to take into account the circumstances of the site and a particular housing development. It is vital that the location and other characteristics of a site are fully considered if there is to be a proper sense of placemaking and a scheme's design and layout reflecting the site's context.

Further, the recognition that viability can be a factor when assessing the housing mix is welcomed.

The principle of the Local Plan Review including a policy to promote custom and self-build plots is supported by Richborough Estates Limited and Option 1 is to be preferred.

There are genuine issues associated with providing custom and self-build plots as part of larger schemes as suggested under Option 2. It is not particularly practicable or feasible to have isolated plots or small groups of plots within a large housing scheme which are not directly under the control of the house builder or main contractor because of tight health and safety requirements. Ensuring that these requirements are met by individuals building their own homes (or small local builders) would be an onerous burden on the house builder/main contractor. There would also be a higher cost for the individuals or local builders complying with the more stringent health and safety requirements associated with a large housing site.

Secondly, the inclusion of custom or self-build plots would affect viability because it is difficult to place a value on the land and when any payment might be received. This may be capable of being addressed via cautious viability appraisals but probably at the expense of affordable homes. Including custom or self-build plots as part of the affordable housing provision might be a means of addressing this issue.

The final point is the current requirement for up-to 50% affordable homes and 5% custom or self-build plots directly impacts on the desirability and viability of only 45% of the dwellings on a site being capable of being sold as market homes. There would be a potential impact of some housing sites being delivered because they would not have the critical mass of market housing to be attractive to a house builder. Further, sight should not be lost that it is the market housing which generates the financial returns to the land owner and is the key to the viability of a scheme.

The Council may also wish to explore the experiences of other authorities. The delivery of custom or self-build homes is not being frustrated by the lack of plots but the lack of finance available from lending institutions to fund such projects. Further, the type of plot which are typically provided on larger schemes will be the same as those of the surrounding homes. Such plots are not conducive to those who aspire to a 'grand design' style of project.

For all these reasons, Option 1 must be preferred as the delivery mechanism for custom and self-build homes.

Richborough Estates consider that density of a development is a matter for master planning to address and support the general approach included in Policy P5. Prescriptive minimum density targets have not led to high quality developments and this is manifested by excessive on-street car parking. Richborough Estates recognises that the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market does refer to optimising the proposed density of development but this can be done within the context of a master planning approach. Indeed, the White Paper also says that the density and form of development should reflect the character, accessibility and infrastructure capacity of an area and the nature of local housing need which are all matters considered as part of a master planning approach.

However, Richborough Estates caution against prescriptive phasing of development without good or sound reasons for doing so. The starting point for this caution is the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to significantly boosting housing supply and this objective has the potential to be materially compromised by the artificial phasing of development. The fundamental objective of Government planning policy remains the delivery of housing which is needed now.

There may well be circumstances where phasing of a site could be justified but these would be linked to triggers for the delivery of the associated infrastructure rather than the artificial constraint on when planning permission might be issued.

Richborough Estates Limited support the proposed allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Potential Housing Allocation 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4) which fully accord with the sequential approach adopted in the Local Plan Review towards the identification of suitable sites. Further comments are made in site-specific representations attached.

Richborough Estates endorse the master planning approach towards Potential Housing Allocations and have already sought to engage with stakeholders in the formulation of proposals for the sites at Frog Lane, Balsall Common and West of Dickens Heath. Richborough Estates will continue to engage with the Council and other stakeholders prior to the submission of any planning application.

Policy P7

The principle of new development being focused in the most accessible locations and contributing towards the enhancement of existing accessibility levels is supported by Richborough Estates Limited. The Potential Housing Allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Site 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Site 4) accord, or can be made to accord with, the locational and accessibility criteria of Policy P7.

Policy P8

The Potential Housing Allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Site 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Site 4), in which Richborough Estates Limited have interests, can or would be able to accord with the criteria in Policy P8 for managing travel demand, reducing congestion and providing parking. Highway consultants have been engaged by Richborough Estates Limited for both draft allocations to address access, linkages and impacts of the highway network.
It would be appropriate for Policy P8 to include thresholds for larger developments being required to include travel planning as part of the scheme.

Policy P9
Subject to any energy efficiency measures not going beyond the Government's requirements and being cost effective for a development (i.e. viable), Richborough Estates Limited does not object to the principle of Policy P9. However, Policy P9 should be based upon a fabric first approach to reducing energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions.

By reason of high capital and revenue/management costs, district energy schemes or similar should not be encouraged because they can become financially unsustainable to manage and maintain in the long term without subsidy.

Policy P10

To accommodate the level of growth proposed within the Borough it is inevitable that there will be some effects on the natural environment. There is a need to balance these effects against other objectives, including the priority given by the Government to the delivery of new homes.
As a sequential approach, national or regional biodiversity interests such as Sites of Scientific Interest or locations with significant protected species interest should be preserved and enhanced.

However, the National Planning Policy Framework is generally silent on local biodiversity interests, including wildlife sites. Where practicable such sites should be retained. However, where their loss is likely, and as part of the wider planning balance considerations, then the mitigation of any loss should be taken into account, whether such measures occur on or off-site. Policy P10 currently denigrates off-setting away from the vicinity of a site but this approach could provide better opportunities to enhance biodiversity interests of a greater value than what might be lost. Richborough Estates Limited consider that a less dogmatic and more flexible approach is required towards local biodiversity interests.
The adoption of a flexible approach would have a greater potential to deliver the approach identified in the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market of securing compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.

Policy P11

Subject to any measures for water management not going beyond the Government's requirements and being cost effective for a development (i.e. viability), Richborough Estates Limited does not object to the principle of Policy P11.

Policy P12

For non-waste developments the level of detail required for site waste management plans or similar supporting documents should reflect the type of application, whether outline, full or reserved matters. As an example, outline applications can only realistically address the principles for waste management rather than provide details about where waste storage locations will be sited and the precise number of containers. A proportionate approach should be established in Policy P12.

Policy P14

Richborough Estates Limited consider that further thought should be given to the drafting of Policy P14. Most of the policy's criteria are addressing wider development control matters rather than just 'amenity' considerations. It may be more appropriate to separate out the living conditions of the occupiers neighbouring properties from wider design considerations. In any event, the first criterion of Policy P14 is unnecessary because of Policy P15.

Policy P15

The White Paper Fixing our broken housing market is indicating a change to national policy to recognise the value of using a widely-accepted design standard, such as Building for Life 12, and making it clear that this should be reflected in plans and given weight in the planning process. Richborough Estates Limited does not object to this as a matter of principle.

However, the dogmatic application of national standards and the other advice/guidance contained in the documents referred to in Policy P15 should be avoid because, in some circumstances, they can stifle innovation, originality or initiative design of the type referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework. Master plans for developments should fit their context because there is no a one size fits all approach available in national design guidance which can be adopted in all cases.

Policy P17

As sought under Policy P20 and the site-specific representation concerning land West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4), Richborough Estates advocate the removal from the Green Belt of the land generally contained by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north of Dickens Heath as a specific allocation for outdoor sports and recreation, namely a Community Sports Hub.

However, in the alternative, the current drafting of Policy P17 is such that a change of use of land to accommodate outdoor sports and recreation uses requires very special circumstances. Richborough Estates Limited object to this policy because it should be amended to enable such changes of use in Solihull Borough to be regarded as not inappropriate development.

Although the forthcoming amendment to the National Planning Policy Framework cannot be fully known at the current time, one of the potential matters which could be addressed is the re-instatement of the previous policy which allowed for changes of use of land provided such uses do not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt. The reintroduction of this policy would address the anomaly that buildings associated with sports and recreation uses in the Green Belt may be considered as not inappropriate development. The White Paper Fixing our broken housing market has started to consider this point by suggesting that facilities for cemeteries may be included in the Framework as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is a response to Case Law.

Irrespective of any change to the Framework, if the Borough Council wishes to promote a healthy lifestyle for its residents then the opportunity exists for Policy P17 to support outdoor sports and recreations uses within the Green Belt by allowing changes of use of land provided the individual proposals preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The need for very special circumstances can be obviated by a redrafting of Policy P17.

If there are concerns that such an amendment would be drafted too widely a refinement could be that the Proposals Map identifies areas where such changes of use within the Green Belt would be assessed as not being inappropriate development. In this context, Richborough Estates would encourage the Council to identify land generally contained by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north of Dickens Heath as a location within the Green Belt for outdoor sports and recreation as part of Policies P17 and P20. The principle of land being identified for such uses and remaining in the Green Belt has been incorporated into the Warwick District Local Plan to the south of Kenilworth. This assumes that the land is not, as advocated by Richborough Estates, taken out of the Green Belt and allocated as a Community Sports Hub.

The provision of a Community Sports Hub can deliver the approach identified in the White Paper of securing compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land, particularly for community, sporting and recreation purposes.

Policy P18

Unless or until the health impact assessment tool has been approved then it is difficult to see how a developer can submit a Health Impact Assessment which would satisfy Policy P18. This part of the policy should not be come into force until the promised assessment tool has been approved by the Council, following appropriate consultation with the development industry.

Policy P20

Richborough Estates Limited support the identification of land West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4) for residential purposes, especially the land south of Tythe Barn Lane contained by Birchy Leasowes Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the existing accessible settlement of Dickens Heath.

If this Potential Housing Allocation is to come forward for development then Richborough Estates fully recognise that the existing sports clubs would need to be relocated. The opportunity exists for the existing facilities to be enhanced for the benefit of the clubs and to provide a recreational, sporting and community resource for both existing and future residents of Dickens Heath and the wider area. This matter is addressed in more detail in the site-specific representation on this Potential Housing Allocation. To facilitate the provision of the new sporting and community facilities, Policy P20 should include a specific allocation for a Community Sports Hub on land generally contained by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north of Dickens Heath. Richborough Estates' preference is for the allocated Community Sports Hub land to be excluded from the Green Belt because this then provides greater flexibility concerning the nature and types of facilities which could be provided and would avoid the need for very special circumstances to be demonstrated just to erect a small store.

If the land remains in the Green Belt then, in the alternative, Policies P17 and P20 should still specifically identify the land as a location for sporting and recreation uses. The principle of land being identified for such uses and remaining in the Green Belt has been incorporated into the Warwick District Local Plan to the south of Kenilworth.

Although the proposal is for the land to be removed from the Green Belt, the provision of a Community Sports Hub has some resonance with the approach identified in the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market of securing compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land, particularly for community, sporting and recreation purposes.