1 | P a g e

Cardiff Local Development Plan Examination Hearing Session 7 (22 January 2015): Allocated Sites – Sites D and E HEARING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RYAN FAMILY (2464) Summary of the representor’s position 1. The representor owns approximately 43 hectares of land at Henstaff Court, immediately

to the west of Strategic Site D and south of Strategic Site E. On the deposit LDP Proposals Map (Document LDP.028), this land is depicted by means of an arrow leading from Site D, which is described in the key as: “potential for future expansion in the plan period (KP1) for flexibility”. In the deposit LDP Written Statement (Document LDP.026), Policy KP1 ascribes 1250 dwellings to this location.

2. The representor welcomes the identification of this land as a location for future housing development but considers that, in order for the plan to be declared sound, the site should be allocated on the LDP Proposals Map. An objection to this effect was made at the deposit stage and treated by Cardiff Council as a boundary amendment (AS(B)2) in the Alternative Sites Register (Document LDP.050).

Hearing session agenda

3. The Programme Officer has indicated that the representation can be considered under agenda item 5 or 17.

Flexibility allowance 4. Cardiff Council has calculated the dwelling requirement for the plan period (2006-2026)

as 41,132 in the LDP Written Statement (Document LDP.026, paragraph 4.27) and has proposed a total supply of 41,273 dwellings (Policy KP1). Neither of these figures includes a flexibility allowance. This is generally calculated as 10% of the dwelling requirement (that is, 4113 in this case), but can vary: Bridgend LDP – 13%; Newport LDP – 12%; Monmouthshire LDP – 10%; Carmarthenshire LDP – 7%.

5. Cardiff Council does not dispute the necessity for a flexibility allowance and proposes to meet it by including within Policy KP1, a total of 4000 additional dwellings (just under 10%), ascribed to strategic sites C and D. In the case of Site C, 1500 dwellings are proposed by additional development within the allocated site and 1250 dwellings by expansion onto adjacent land to the north of Llantrisant Road. In the case of Site D, 1250 dwellings are proposed by expansion onto the representor’s land at Henstaff Court.

2 | P a g e

Meeting the flexibility allowance

6. The purpose of a flexibility allowance is to provide the required level of housing should sites in the plan not be delivered as envisaged. It is, therefore, an issue that goes to the soundness of the plan.

7. In the case of other LDPs, the flexibility allowance has been met by proper site allocations rather than indicative proposals. For example:

Monmouthshire – Monmouthshire County Council had not included a flexibility allowance in its deposit plan. The Inspector (Siân Worden) issued preliminary findings requiring a 10% flexibility allowance and, at her request, the Council responded during the course of the examination proposing additional sites to meet it (Report on the Examination into the Monmouthshire LDP, 30 January 2014, paras 4.9-4.10).

Newport – Newport City Council proposed a flexibility allowance of over 12% in its deposit plan and allocated sites to cover it. The Inspector (Alwyn Nixon) agreed with this figure (Report on the Examination into the Newport LDP, 11 December 2014, paras 4.1-4.2).

Bridgend – Bridgend County Borough Council proposed a flexibility allowance of 13% in its deposit plan. The Inspector (Robert Mellor) considered that problems with one allocated site were such that further allocations were required to maintain flexibility at a level of at least 10% (Report on the Examination into the Bridgend LDP, 26 July 2013, paras 4.47, 7.62-7.68). At his request, the Council responded during the course of the examination proposing additional housing and mixed-use sites

8. The representor considers that in the Cardiff LDP, as with other LDPs, the flexibility

allowance should be provided for by means of specific site allocations.

9. Regulation 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005 sets out the requirements for preparing the LDP Proposals Map. Regulation 12(2) defines a ‘proposal’ as a “site specific policy” (underlining added). The Council’s proposed use of a symbol (an arrow in this case) is inappropriate in that it is not site specific. One of the purposes of a development plan is to convey certainty about the future use of land. Where the proposed use is spatially extensive, as in this case, it cannot be properly or adequately depicted by the use of a symbol; that lacks certainty and precision, both for the landowner and for others who may be affected.

10. Support in practice for this will be found in the approach of the Inspector (Robert Mellor) who conducted the examination of the Bridgend LDP. Mr Mellor confirmed that the use of symbols on the Proposals Map is inappropriate and, during the course of the examination, the Council responded by proposing various changes including replacing symbols with site-specific allocations (Report on the Examination into the Bridgend LDP, 26 July 2013, paras 1.9, 4.12, 5.13, 6.65 and 7.128). Relevant extracts from Mr Mellor’s report are attached.

3 | P a g e

The Council’s response

11. The Council’s response to the representor’s deposit objections is set out at paragraphs 2464.D1, D2 and D3 of the Consultation Report – Appendix 15 (Document LDP.052a).

12. In the opinion of the representor, the Council’s response in paragraphs 2464.D2 and D3 did not properly address the representor’s objections. The representor does not dispute the necessity for a flexibility allowance; on the contrary, the respresentor considers that, as with other LDPs, the flexibility allowance should be met by site specific allocations.

Sustainability appraisal

13. The representor’s site has been the subject of sustainability appraisal by the Council, as part of an enlarged Site D: see paragraph 7.4 and Table 7.2 of the Final Sustainability Appraisal Report (Document LDP.040). In addition, the representor submitted a discrete sustainability appraisal as part of the deposit LDP representations.

Soundness tests

14. For the reasons set out above, the plan does not comply with the following soundness tests:

Test CE1: the plan does not set out a coherent strategy, as inadequate provision is made for housing flexibility.

Test CE2: the allocations are not realistic and appropriate, as inadequate provision is made for housing flexibility.

Test CE4: the LDP is insufficiently flexible to deal with changing circumstances, as inadequate provision is made for housing flexibility.

Conclusion 15. It is requested that the Henstaff Court site (alternative site AS(B)2) be identified on the

LDP Proposals Map. Paul Vining BSc(Hons), DipTP(Dist), MRTPI Director WYG Group, Longcross Court, 47 Newport Road, Cardiff CF24 0AD paul.vining@wyg.com 5 January 2015 A083423