“Significant implications” as Government inspectors say council’s Local Plan is not sound

GOVERNMENT inspectors have told Warrington Borough Council its proposed Local Plan is not sound and will require some significant modifications, including reducing the impact on Green Belt.

Inspectors, Andrea Mageean and Kevin Ward’s findings in relation to the employment land requirement, The South East Warrington Employment Area (Policy MD6) (SEWEA), Fiddlers Ferry and Warrington Waterfront will have significant implications. They have also sought the council’s views on the need for a travellers’ encampment within the Local Plan.
However, they say the Local Plan process can now proceed to the main modifications stage, with no need for any substantial additional work, and no need to identify alternative site allocations.
But their findings will be welcomed by those who have been campaigning against proposed development on Green Belt land, in particular land earmarked for the controversial Six56 development at Grappenhall, while serious doubt has also been expressed over the proposed Western Link.

Following their Examination of the Warrington Local Plan they said in a lengthy detailed report: “Following the final scheduled hearing session on 6 October 2022, we have now received all of the outstanding items of information and evidence requested. We have also received comments from a number of participants on relevant documents produced during the hearing sessions. In light of all of this, we are now able to set out the way forward for the examination.
“As we said at the hearing session on 6 October, we are satisfied that the Council has complied with the duty to co-operate. We have concluded that the submitted Local Plan is not sound as it stands. However, we consider that it can be made sound by main modifications and that subject to consultation on such main modifications we can proceed with our report and the Local Plan could be adopted within a reasonable timescale.”

In their report they state the Council has taken an appropriate approach to the assessment of local housing need using the standard methodology in national planning policy guidance (PPG). The Local Plan is justified in setting out a housing requirement which matches local housing need i.e. an average of 816 homes per annum and a minimum of 14,688 over the plan period from 2021/22 to 2038/39. It is also justified in setting out a stepped approach to the requirement with an annual average requirement of 678 for the first five years and an annual average of 870 homes for the remainder of the plan period. This reflects the timescales to realistically bring forward some site allocations on land currently in the Green Belt and for infrastructure to be put in place to support the development of larger sites.

But they said there was a “significant disparity between the employment land requirement in the submitted Local Plan and the level of housing proposed. This is in the context of a Local Plan which proposes alterations to the Green Belt to allocate land for employment and housing. The employment land requirement of 316.26ha is not justified therefore.
“On the basis of the above analysis, an employment land requirement of 168ha would be broadly aligned with the projected increase in labour supply as a result of the housing requirement of 816 homes per annum, taking account of past trends in land take up and associated overall jobs growth. It would be significantly above a requirement derived directly from jobs growth modelling, even when based only on growth sectors and including the additional optimistic growth from the Strategic Economic Plan. Such a requirement would enable the Local Plan to be aspirational and positively prepared. In order for the Local Plan to be justified in this respect, the employment land requirement should be reduced to 168ha.

Their report went on to say: “It has been argued by some representors that the housing requirement should be increased to align it more closely with the employment land requirement of 316.26ha. However, a substantial increase in the housing requirement would be needed to provide a sufficient increase in labour supply. This would inevitably involve significant further
alterations to the Green Belt, in addition to those already proposed. In itself the average annual housing requirement of 816 homes represents a significant increase when compared with recent trends in completions. Increasing the housing requirement would not be justified and would raise considerable doubts in terms of realistic delivery. Such an approach would not therefore be appropriate.

They added that the proposed South East Warrington Employment Area (SEWEA) would involve the removal of some 137ha of land from the Green Belt and its allocation for employment development (B8 and B2 and related ancillary uses) and that all other reasonable options for meeting the identified need for development should be examined, before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries.
“A key element of the Council’s case is that there is an employment land requirement of 316.26ha and that this can’t be met without altering the Green Belt and allocating land for development. However, we have concluded that the requirement of 316.26ha is not justified and it should be reduced to 168ha. We have also concluded that the supply of employment land provided by existing commitments and the proposed Fiddlers Ferry Main Development Area would be sufficient to meet this reduced requirement.

They went on to say: “The allocation at Fiddlers Ferry and existing commitments would provide a range of sites in different locations across the Borough, including for B8 uses. The employment land element of the Fiddlers Ferry allocation would involve the redevelopment of the former coal fired power station and associated previously developed land. Bringing forward the Fiddlers
Ferry site for employment development clearly has significant challenges in relation to the demolition and clearance of existing buildings and structures, remediation works and the overall viability of the proposals. It is also not as well placed as the SEWEA in relation to the motorway network. However, the site is being actively promoted for redevelopment and some progress has been made in terms of bringing forward proposals. The Council’s position is that the employment land element of the Fiddlers Ferry allocation is viable and deliverable (subject to cross subsidy from housing) and that it has potential to accommodate large scale and strategic development, including for logistics. As set out below and subject to our detailed conclusions on the Fiddlers Ferry allocation, we share this view. In terms of the range and type of employment land that would be available, there is no strategic need for the SEWEA therefore.”

They said the scale and form of the development proposed would be transformative in nature, substantially expanding the industrial character of the adjacent area. and concluded there was no strategic need for the SEWEA allocation in terms of the need for employment land or the range and type of employment land that would be available. It would result in a significant encroachment into the countryside, undermining one of the purposes of the Green Belt and would cause severe harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It would also have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Whilst there would be economic benefits as a result of the allocation, these would not outweigh the above concerns.
“Exceptional circumstances to alter the Green Belt in this case do not exist. In order for the Local Plan to be justified and consistent with national policy the proposed SEWEA and Policy MD6 should be deleted therefore.”

Regarding the council’s Warrington Waterfront Main Development Area the inspectors said it could potentially make a significant contribution to housing provision and reduce the need for Green Belt alterations elsewhere in the Borough. In principle the allocation of the site is justified. However, the development of the site is wholly reliant on the proposed Warrington Western Link Road as it is not otherwise accessible. The Council fully acknowledges this and indeed the Local Plan makes this clear. The cost of the Western Link had previously been estimated at £212.7m. A conditional offer of a maximum capped £142.5m funding contribution was received from the Department for Transport in April 2019. The Council had made a commitment to fund the remaining £70.2m in November 2017 and again in July 2019.
The context for the Western Link has changed significantly since then however. The previous proposed submission version of the Local Plan (PVLP1) published in April 2019 included a substantially larger Warrington Waterfront allocation incorporating two areas of employment land. Additionally it included a south west urban extension of around 1,600 homes which would also have been reliant on the Western Link. In both cases, contributions towards the western link would have been required. These proposals were not carried forward to the submitted Local Plan and the scale of development proposed in this part of Warrington is now much less.

Crucially the estimated cost of the scheme has now increased by some £57m to approximately £269m. The previous commitments to funding are now dated and the context for the scheme has changed significantly.
“We are not aware of any recent commitments to funding from either the Department for Transport or the Council in the light of the current proposals in the submitted Local Plan and the estimated increased overall cost. In any case, even if those commitments still stand, there is a very substantial shortfall in funding of some £57m. Whilst we appreciate that the Council remains committed to the Western Link and is exploring possible sources of additional funding, there is insufficient basis to conclude that such funding will be secured or that there is even a
realistic prospect of it being secured. This puts the delivery of the Western Link in serious doubt.

“Therefore on the basis of the evidence currently available, we consider that the Warrington Waterfront Main Development Area is not developable within the plan period. However, as
we have said, the principle of the allocation is justified. It may be that funding for the Western Link can be secured at some point, facilitating the development of the Warrington Waterfront site. In light of this the allocation and Policy MD1 should remain in the Local
Plan (subject to detailed modifications). This would retain the potential for housing development to come forward and may assist in securing funding for the Western Link.
“However, the housing trajectory and the calculation of the supply of housing land should not factor in any completions from the site, given the degree of uncertainty that exists. The
Local Plan should be modified to explain this clearly.”

The inspectors also drew the council’s attention to a recent Court of Appeal judgement regarding the interpretation of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the application of that policy to Gypsies and Travellers who have ceased to pursue nomadic lifestyles (Lisa Smith v SSLUHC [2022] EWCA Civ 1391).
“In light of that judgement, we would be grateful for your views as to the implications for the assessment of accommodation needs and the Local Plan’s approach to meeting such needs.

They concluded that in addition to the main modifications that are required to address the key issues there will need to be a number of other main modifications, dealing with a range of
policies throughout the Local Plan.
Once the way forward has been clarified, the schedule of main modifications would need to be available for public consultation for at least six weeks and subject to sustainability appraisal
and potentially also Habitats Regulations Assessment.

In response to the findings Warrington Borough Council issued the following statement:
“Following the Examination in Public of Warrington’s Proposed Submission Version Local Plan (“draft Local Plan”), the Planning Inspectorate have set out their initial views in a post-hearing letter.
“This letter, available to read on the council website, provides initial views from the Inspectors on the key issues discussed during the Examination in Public and the next steps for progressing the Local Plan.
“It states that importantly, the Inspectors are satisfied with the council’s housing calculation requirement of 816 homes per year, and while they do not consider we can rely on housing completions from the Waterfront site and that the southern part of the Fiddlers Ferry site should not be removed from the Green Belt, they conclude that there would still be a sufficient supply of housing sites to meet the housing requirement over the plan period.

“From an employment perspective, the Inspectors’ initial view is that the amount of employment land required isn’t as much as stated in the draft Local Plan, on the basis that the council’s assessment of need was based on previous rates of employment land completion, compared to the Inspectors’ calculations and views being based on the number of jobs that are forecast to come forward, supported by the number of new homes.
“This assessment of employment land has led the Inspectors to take a view that not all proposed employment sites will need to come forward as part of the draft Local Plan.
“With this in mind, the Inspectors have made their initial view that with some modifications, the Local Plan will be sound. These modifications will be consulted on publically by the council for six weeks, early in 2023. Having reviewed the responses to the modifications consultation, the Inspectors will then issue their final report before the Plan is then expected to proceed to Full Council for adoption.”

Leader of the Council, Cllr Russ Bowden, said: “We note the Inspectors’ initial views and are pleased that the draft Local Plan is progressing. We will now consider the modifications required to the Plan that will go back out for a public consultation, so that we can continue to gather feedback.
“This further, and hopefully final, consultation on the modifications will give us the chance to respond to any final matters raised in the Inspectors’ initial judgement, as we work towards next year when we expect the Plan to be put forward for adoption.”
To read the full letter from the Planning Inspectorate and to find out more about the Local Plan, visit the Local Plan pages on the council’s website.
CLICK HERE