EXAMINATION OF THE SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Matter 2 Duty to Co-operate Main issues: Whether or not the legal requirements imposed by S33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) have been met in the preparation of the Plan. Statement on behalf of the Croome Estate Trustees and Mactaggart & Mickel 1. Carter Jonas acts on behalf of the owners of land on the edge of Tewkesbury, the Croome Estate Trustees (the Trustees) and Mactaggart & Mickel who have a promotion agreement with the Trustees for the delivery of development on this land. 2. The land, on the eastern side of Bredon Road, forms part of an area known as the Mitton land. It is situated in Wychavon District but immediately abuts the built-up area of Tewkesbury (in Gloucestershire). 3. The land controlled by the Trustees and Mactaggart and Mickel extends to approximately 27 hectares and has the capacity to accommodate circa 375 dwellings. The land also forms part of a larger proposal (circa 75 hectares) being promoted by the North Tewkesbury Land Consortium (NTLC). The two parcels of land together could deliver approximately 1,100 dwellings, together with land for a new primary school, commercial uses and associated open space. 4. The land areas are shown on the Site Location Plan attached as Appendix 1 to this Statement.
5. The land has been assessed through the Wychavon Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and was considered to be suitable for development. The land has also been assessed through the Initial Sustainability Appraisal Report for the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (GCT-JCS) and found to be a sustainable location that is recommended for further in depth assessment. 6. The following statement builds upon the representations submitted by Carter Jonas to the South Worcestershire Development Plan Proposed Submission Document (January 2013). 7. Our broad position is that the relevant Councils have not effectively discharged the duty to cooperate. In particular, there has been a failure to effectively grapple with the cross boundary issues between the Worcestershire and Gloucestershire authorities, in the vicinity of Tewkesbury. Matter 2(i) Is there clear evidence that, in the preparation of the Plan, the Councils have engaged constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies on strategic matters and issues with cross-boundary impacts? 8. We do not believe there is clear evidence that the South Worcestershire authorities have engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis with their counter-parts at Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury (GCT). 9. Representations submitted by Carter Jonas to the Regional Spatial Strategies for the South West and the West Midlands Regions consistently raised the need for cross-boundary engagement. The Panel Report prepared following the West Midlands RSS Examination addresses the matter directly, with a clear
recommendation to the Secretary of State that policy reference be included in the RSS - relating to cross-boundary co-operation between Wychavon District and Tewkesbury Borough, over determining the most sustainable locations for growth. Although this policy recommendation was not implemented (because a final version of the RSS was never published), it is a material consideration that when the matter was last independently scrutinised, the Panel felt that cross-boundary co-operation was of such importance, it merited a specific policy reference. 10. Since the RSS Panel made its recommendation, joint plans have been progressed for the South Worcestershire, and Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury areas. We believe that in light of this approach, the requirement for co-operation should fall on the joint authorities (rather than just on the Wychavon and Tewkesbury LPAs). 11. There have been occasional meetings held between the Councils, at which the Croome Estate Trustees and North Tewkesbury Land Consortium have been represented. The more recent meeting was held on 7 th June 2011 at Tewkesbury Borough Council's offices as part of a Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury 'Broad Locations' assessment process, relating to meeting the growth needs of the area. Earlier discussions had been initiated by RPS (on behalf of the North Tewkesbury Land Consortium) to make the authorities aware of the availability of the Mitton land, its suitability and lack of constraints. 12. Having reviewed the South Worcestershire Authorities' Duty to Cooperate Statement (in particular Appendix A4), significant reliance appears to be placed on just five officer level meetings that took place over an approximate four year period. No notes of the discussions have been made available at Appendix A4, or elsewhere). There is simply a statement that at all meetings it was considered
that land at Mitton was not required to serve the Tewkesbury area but that a dialogue would continue over cross boundary issues. 13. We do not believe that the above demonstrates effective and constructive engagement in respect of the Duty to Cooperate. 14. Furthermore, we do not believe that the sweeping statement - land at Mitton was not required to serve the Tewkesbury area sits comfortably with other available evidence. For example: There is a clear statement in the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Developing the Preferred Options Document 2011/12 that land north of Tewkesbury Town (in South Worcestershire) may be required to meet the needs of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury authorities. It states Tewkesbury Town may need to play a larger role in this scenario and there are opportunities for additional development to the north and east of the town that are away from existing areas of flooding. The Sustainability Appraisal Report that accompanied the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Developing the Preferred Options Document 2011/12, sets out that the land at Mitton is a suitable site for development and should be included in further assessment and Sustainability Appraisal work for the Preferred Option Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury CS. Despite the assertion in the SWDP Duty to Cooperate Statement that all meetings concluded that the Mitton land is not required, the Gloucestershire authorities have not been in a position until September 2013 to identify what they believe is the objectively assessed need for the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury area. The important implication being, that Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury could not have been in a position to advise the
SWDP authorities that land in Wychavon was, or was not, required, to meet the housing needs of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury area. This is confirmed in the Tewkesbury and Gloucester City Council responses to the SWDP consultation in September 2012, where Gloucester City Council clearly stated that the SWDP should remain flexible to accommodating any need arising from the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury authorities, once this was established. 15. In summary, we do not believe that the material provided in Appendix A4 is sufficient to demonstrate evidence of constructive, active and on-going engagement as regards the potential for sustainable development to the north of Tewkesbury, in Wychavon District. 4. Matter 2(ii) Does the Plan taken adequate account of development requirements that cannot be wholly met in neighbouring areas, including the West Midlands conurbation and north Gloucestershire? 16. No. The following response focuses on the issue of north Gloucestershire. 17. On 24 August 2013 the Draft Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury JCS (as recommended by officers for the three authorities) was made available. The officers' report and Draft Plan propose a housing requirement of 33,200 net additional dwellings in period 2011-2031. This contrasts with the advice from the authorities consultants, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, that the objectively assessed level of housing need is 37,400 dwellings. 18. There is therefore a clear difference of opinion between the Council and Nathaniel and Lichfield Partners. This suggests that there will undoubtedly be further
debate over the evidence of objectively assessed housing need, and the robustness of the Councils positions. It cannot therefore be ruled out that some of the finally agreed housing need for Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury will need to be accommodated in the SWDP area. 19. It is recognised that cross boundary coordination can be challenging - but these challenges should not stand in the way of delivering sustainable development. The land at Mitton has the ability to potentially help meet the housing requirements of both South Worcestershire (Wychavon District) and that of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury areas. 20. The Proposed Significant Changes (August 2012) and supporting explanatory text (see page 34) were dismissive of the need to meet any unmet requirements at Tewkesbury within the SWDP area. Just a month after the Proposed Significant Changes were published, Officers at Tewkesbury Borough Council (Report to the Executive, 5 th September 2012), advised that the level of development required for the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury JCS area is still to be confirmed and there can therefore be no certainty that the JCS area would be able to meet all of its development requirements. 21. The option of potentially accommodating some of the housing needs of Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Borough in the SWDP area is given insufficient consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal work for the SWDP. 22. Policy SWDP 2 (including footnotes 4 and 5) of the Submission SWDP set out the development strategy for the area, including the approach to meeting the housing needs of neighbouring planning authorities within the SWDP area. SWDP 3 sets
out the housing requirement in South Worcestershire, with no provision made for the need arising from Tewkesbury. 23. Carter Jonas does not believe the approach taken by the SWDP is sufficiently proactive or flexible. 24. At the very least, the SWDP should be more positively worded. The existence of an administrative boundary should not in itself result in significant delays in the delivery of sustainable development. Footnote 4 ought to recognise the status of the Mitton land in the Joint SHLAA, as being available, suitable and viable. Footnote 5 should not require neighbouring authorities to demonstrate that their development needs can only be met through provision in the South Worcestershire area. The prescribed test should be that the neighbouring authorities have demonstrated that cross-boundary development would result in the most sustainable form of development. 25. The reference in Footnote 5 to a review of the SWDP in 2018-19 should be amended. Given the significant costs and delays often associated with the preparation of Development Plan Documents, the SWDP should retain a more flexible approach to the timing and mechanism for bringing forward development on the Mitton land. This could, for example, be through an early partial review of the SWDP. 26. More fundamentally, given the status of the Mitton land in the SHLAA, the issue is not whether the Mitton land is suitable for development as a matter of principle, but more about whether there is a need for this land to come forward at this time. Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Council are yet to formally determine whether the Mitton land is needed to meet the development
requirements set out in their emerging Joint Core Strategy, and indeed, the matter will not be finally resolved until the Joint Core Strategy is adopted. Given the significant time and resources required to undertake a full review of the Development Plan, Carter Jonas would urge the consideration of other options for providing Development Plan support for the Mitton land. This could be in form of a reserve site (identified in the SWDP), with future development contingent on the need for this land to come forward to help meet the development needs of Tewkesbury, as established through the Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Joint Core Strategy process. 27. For the avoidance of doubt, the above proposition is presented alongside the proposal that the Mitton land could also assist in meeting the objectively assessed housing needs of the SWDP area. Ends.