Emma Newfield - Redditch · Whilst having to respond to an unstructured ‘Narrative’ is atypical (the typical situation being one whereby consultees are asked to comment on a draft

1

Emma Newfield

From: Michael DunphySent: 24 February 2016 15:50To: Consult PlanningSubject: FW: BAAG written response February 2016Attachments: BAAG Representation 160224.pdf; BAAG Representation 150505.pdf

Importance: High

From: Sue Harrop Sent: 24 February 2016 15:48 To: Cc: Michael Dunphy Subject: BAAG written response February 2016 Importance: High Dear Helen Further to your message below, please find our AECOM/BAAG written response. The timing and nature of our submission has been influenced in part by the exchange of emails with the Inspector in early January. This Hearing Statement, which we are submitting in advance of the deadline, is a response to the Councils’ Narrative on the Site Selection Process for the Growth Areas. We will ensure that 3 copies are delivered to your address before the end of the week. Also as requested in your message of 18 February I also attach a copy of our response to the SA consultation May 2015 (referred to as SA037). I confirm that both Mark Fessey (AECOM) and Malcolm Glainger (Chair BAAG) will be participating in the hearing(s). Kind regards Sue Harrop Secretary BAAG

----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:14 PM Subject: Re: Comments on documents posted on Examinations website on 31 December 2015 (updated 4 January 2016) Sue The Inspector notes the statement on behalf of BAAG sent by e-mail dated 16 February 2016. He is however concerned that it does not appear to include any comments on the Council’s most recent consultation. He wishes to remind the Group that any statement submitted in advance of a hearing is intended to be additional to the main representation rather than to act as a replacement for it. It is a general principle of Local Plan examinations that all of the evidence submitted by representors is submitted with the original representation. Clearly, it is in the interests of all parties, in line with the principles of fairness and openness, that comments are made available within the published timescales. He therefore requests BAAG to explain its concerns with urgency. A written response is required by 1700 hours on Monday 29 February 2016 at the latest.

Kind regards

Helen Helen Wilson

Examination of the Bromsgrove District Plan and Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4

Cross-Boundary Allocations Hearing Session

Hearing Statement submitted

on behalf of Bentley Area

Action Group (BAAG)

February 2016

Examination of the BDP and BORLP4

REPRESENTATION February 2016

ii

REVISION SCHEDULE

Rev Date Details Prepared by Approved by

1 Feb 2016

Hearing Statement setting out AECOM/BAAG’s response the Councils’ Narrative on the Site Selection Process for the Growth Areas at Redditch document.

Mark Fessey Principal Consultant

Steve Smith Technical Director

Limitations

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) has prepared this Report for the use of the Bentley Area Action Group in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by AECOM has not been independently verified by AECOM, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken in 2014 - 16 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.

AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to AECOM’s attention after the date of the Report.

Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. AECOM specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Copyright

© This Report is the copyright of AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited.

AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Limited

6-8 Greencoat Place

London, SW1P 1PL



iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................ 1 1.2 This Hearing Statement ..................................................... 1

2. RESPONDING TO THE NARRATIVE ............................... 2

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................... 2 2.2 Comments on Chapter 2 .................................................... 2 2.3 Comments on Chapter 7 .................................................... 3 2.4 Comments on Chapter 8 .................................................... 3 2.5 Comments on Chapter 9 .................................................... 3 2.6 Comments on Chapter 10 .................................................. 9 2.7 Comments on Chapter 11 .................................................. 9 2.8 Comments on Chapters 12 - 15 ......................................... 9 2.9 Comments on Chapters 16 .............................................. 10 2.10 Comments on Appendix I ................................................. 11

3. PLAN-MAKING / SA PROCESS ...................................... 12

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 12 3.2 Recapping ........................................................................ 12 3.3 Updating ........................................................................... 15 3.4 Conclusions ...................................................................... 17

4. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 19

APPENDIX I: BAAG MEMBERS ........................................................ 20

APPENDIX II: REVIEW OF THE BORLP SA REPORT ..................... 24



iv

For the avoidance of doubt, potential locations for cross-boundary development are referred to in this report according to the numbers assigned to them in the Housing Growth Development Study, 2013.



1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Bentley Area Action Group (BAAG) represents the views of 154 residents (see Appendix I) with an interest in the villages and countryside to the west of Redditch.

BAAG is concerned by the proposal to meet Redditch’s housing need through development of a major urban extension into the Green Belt at Foxlydiate, encroaching to within 130m of Bentley. As understood from the submitted Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) and Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4 (BORLP4), the scheme would be implemented through BDP Policy RCBD1.1 (and supported by BORLP4).

AECOM (formally URS) is instructed by BAAG to submit representations and hearing statements to the examination of the BDP and BORLP4. The aim is to inform and influence the examination, and ultimately the decision on how to progress.

1.2 This Hearing Statement

This current statement is prepared in response to the Narrative on the Site Selection Process for the Growth Areas at Redditch (‘the Narrative’), which the Councils

published for consultation on 31 December 2015.

Specifically, the aim is to present views on the process and technical analysis - as described within the Narrative - that is being relied upon by the Councils to justify the selection of a preferred spatial strategy for the expansion of Redditch.

It is also important to note that AECOM/BAAG’s views on the Narrative are presented in light of, and with reference to, issues raised within the Inspector’s Post Hearing Notes of 10 July and 18 September 2015.

Structure of this Hearing Statement

Section 2 - Responds to points made within the Narrative, aside from those that relate to plan-making process.

Section 3 - Considers the plan-making process, recapping (in brief summary form) and updating points made previously.

Section 4 - Concludes and suggests next steps.

Relationship to past representations and Hearing Statements

This Hearing Statement is the latest in a series of reports prepared by AECOM on behalf of BAAG. AECOM prepared a Hearing Statement in December 2014 (document XB1/8), followed by a response to the ‘Sustainability Appraisals’ consultation in May 2015 (referred to as SA037) and then a Hearing Statement in June 2015 (document XB1/8a). Also, BAAG, working with consultants BSP, submitted a representation to the 2013 ‘Housing Growth Development Study’ consultation (documents XB1/4 - XB1/4c).



2

2. RESPONDING TO THE NARRATIVE

2.1 Introduction

Whilst having to respond to an unstructured ‘Narrative’ is atypical (the typical situation being one whereby consultees are asked to comment on a draft plan, with the SA Report available to inform the consultation), AECOM/BAAG take the opportunity to respond to the Narrative within this section.

Issues raised / views expressed are consistent with those presented within the ‘technical analysis’ sections of the AECOM/BAAG reports of 2014 / 2015 (see Box 1).

Box 1: The ‘technical analysis’ sections of AECOM/BAAG’s earlier reports

These sections sought to do two things.

1. Review each of the Councils’ c.60 one sentence statements made on cross-boundary development, considering the helpfulness of the statements to those interested in the merits of alternatives, and the extent to which each statement is supported by evidence, including the outcomes of the Councils’ site options analysis.

2. Discuss the relative merits of site options under 15 thematic headings, with reference to the Councils’ statements on cross-boundary development, site options analysis and also the analysis presented within the 2013 Housing Growth Development Study.

2.2 Comments on Chapter 2: “The Process Explained”

AECOM/BAAG’s views on ‘the process’ are presented in Section 3, below. For now, three specific points are as follows -

Para 2.21 deals with the ‘WYG2’ report, explaining that the aim was to identify a ‘preferred option’, but then fails to identify the preferred option (which was focused growth at Area 8). Also, the second sentence within the following statement does not follow from the first:

“The findings of the report were discussed in the WMRSS Phase 2 revision Examination in Public process in April 2009 but many of its key conclusions such as the optimum location for growth and the return of ADRs to Green Belt were not expressly rejected by the Panel, as documented in the Panel Report dated September 2009. However, some of the research conducted in this Study does remain valid, for example, in relation to Redditch’s open space.”

Para 2.62 states that “all of the most suitable areas were taken to the Focussed Area Appraisal stage”. However, this is contradicted by the Councils’ statement of 15

th September 2015 (letter to the Inspector), which states: “Changes to the

Redditch SA mean that the original justification (partly informed by the stand alone Housing Growth Development Study Sustainability Appraisal) which helped determine those areas that were taken forward to the Focussed Area Assessment cannot be relied upon to have the same outcome.”

Para 2.63 states that: “The SA therefore has some limitations in terms of the final decision making process due in part to it being of necessity based on a simple and rudimentary scoring system in which it is difficult to properly address some planning judgments.” AECOM/BAAG disagree that a ‘simple and rudimentary scoring system’ is inevitable. AECOM/BAAG wish to see a detailed appraisal of alternative housing growth scenarios (and an explanation of the Councils’ reasons for supporting the preferred option, despite drawbacks / trade-offs).



3

2.3 Comments on Chapter 7: “Areas of Search and Initial Potential Growth Locations”

Para 7.18 states: “It was also considered that development in this area would affect the character of Bordesley.” The value and sensitivity of character here is questionable, given that Bordesley is a ribbon development. The matter is largely dismissed as a non-issue at para 9.28, but then raised again in Appendix I.

We note para 7.19, which states: “Site 8 is considered to be well related to the Town Centre and employment and infrastructure improvements could be simpler and cheaper than other sites.”

Para 7.19 states: “Development of Site 8 would bring the built up area of Redditch close to Rowney Green, affecting its character.” AECOM/BAAG question this, given a hard boundary (Storrage Lane) and extensive intervening woodland.

We note para 7.22, which states: “… adverse strategic planning implications associated with accommodating growth adjacent to the Town would be minimised to the north west/ north east with development concentrated around the A441.” AECOM/BAAG maintain that strategic planning considerations point to this area (Area 8) as being well suited to accommodating growth.

2.4 Comments on Chapter 8: “Collection and Consolidation of the Evidence”

Para 8.7 incorrectly states: “The HGDS included evidence on the best and most versatile land and agricultural land quality. This information came from publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/130044?category=5954148537204736” The HGDS, under various “Best and Most Versatile Land and Agricultural Land Quality” headings, made statements referring to the ‘likelihood’ (expressed in percentage terms) of best and most versatile agricultural land being present, and similar statements are repeated within the Narrative (e.g. see para 9.140 and Appendix I). These statements are not evidenced by the report referenced.

AECOM/BAAG has recently looked into matters further. Essentially, Natural England explain that the ‘the most detailed and up-to-date dataset’ is the ‘post 1988 surveys’ dataset, which is freely and easily available at magic.gov.uk.

1 What

the dataset shows is that only land to the west of Redditch (including Area 4) has been surveyed. This is the evidence that BAAG provided to the Councils in 2013, and has since repeatedly sought to make reference to.

2

2.5 Comments on Chapter 9: “Area Selection Process”

Green Belt

Para 9.24 identifies three ‘key’ Green Belt purposes, and the ability to identify a defensible Green Belt boundary as “key in this process of analysis particularly in relation to the first purpose of checking unrestricted sprawl.” AECOM/BAAG suggest that the situation and aspect of Area 4 (looking out towards the Malverns) makes it inherently difficult to check unrestricted sprawl, prevent merging of settlements and safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

1 See http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35012

2 See XB1/4c Appendix 2 -Agricultural Land Classification: Land West of Redditch (MAFF, 1997).

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35012



4

Para 9.26 states that: “In Area 8 the landscape is generally characterised by a gently undulating and rising slope up towards Storrage Lane providing largely uninterrupted views over a wide expanse of the landscape of Area 8. Therefore even though the landscape here is predominantly of medium sensitivity, potential development of the magnitude required is capable of being extremely prominent and intrusive and would comprise sprawl, this is exacerbated by the difficulty of identifying any potential for a strong defensible boundary short of Storrage Lane.” There are several points to make -

Firstly, AECOM/BAAG suggest that the proposed boundary short of Storrage lane lies on a well-defined ridgeline and therefore has potential to be ‘strong’ (recognising the reliance placed on a ridgeline in Area 4).

Secondly, we suggest that ‘views over a wide expanse of Area 8’ is not indicative of constraint.

Thirdly, the term ‘intrusive’ is questioned, as the views from this area are predominantly towards Redditch, Bordesley and Weights lane Industrial Park. It would be prominent from urban areas, but not within the wider countryside.

Finally, we note that Appendix I (SWOT analysis) of the Councils’ Narrative describes Area 8 as simply ‘medium and high landscape sensitivity’. In actual fact, the area is virtually all medium sensitivity landscape. There is just a slither of high sensitivity landscape at the south-west extent.

We note para 9.27, which discusses the importance of preventing coalescence between towns. Development of Area 4 will significantly reduce the Redditch / Bromsgrove gap. This point is made only in Appendix I of the Narrative only (see discussion of Finstall, which is the easternmost part of Bromsgrove).

Para 9.28 discusses the extent to which ‘urbanising influences’ are present within each area, stating that: “In relation to Area 4 the edge of the urban development of Redditch is already visible on high ground at Webheath (development off Great Hockings Lane) together with some urbanising influences such as a riding school and stables… In Area 8 ribbon development at Bordesley is visible together with Redditch Town itself. Urbanising influences also includes a scrap yard on site…” From this statement it is clear that urbanising influences are far more prominent at Area 8 than at Area 4; however, the paragraph goes on to conclude that: “In Areas 3 and 4 evidence of urbanising influences are already present and development here could therefore be viewed as an opportunity to contain further sprawl...”

Para 9.29 states: “In Area 8 the strongest boundary lay at the northernmost boundary of the study Area at Storrage Lane where negative impacts in terms of sprawl had already been identified.” The latter part of this statement is questioned. Is the sole issue coalescence with Rowney Green? The significance of this as an issue should be queried (see discussion above, under para 7.19).

Access to employment

Paras 9.42 to 9.44 purport to deal with access to employment, but in fact simply deal with access to the Town Centre. There is nil discussion of important employment growth locations (e.g. Redditch Eastern Gateway), and a suggestion that retail is the primary employment consideration (when clearly it is not):

“Employment is provided though the retail provision and all supporting employment associated with this, such as financial services, office buildings, (including the Redditch and Bromsgrove Council Offices), with many residents looking to the Town Centre as a source of employment.”



5

Access (to town centre etc.)

Para 9.48 discusses links between Area 8 and the town centre. AECOM/BAAG would point out the relative proximity to the town centre / train station, and suggest that the nature of the A441 as a road corridor would indicate good potential for bus links (between Birmingham and Redditch, via Alvechurch) to be upgraded.

Para 9.51 states that: “… the Cross Boundary Development Policy… [specifies] the need for development to deliver these local facilities; as a result all new development will be within walking distance to a Local Centre. Therefore accessibility to the Town Centre is an important determining factor in the site selection process.” Firstly, the second sentence does not follow from the first. Secondly, this analysis shows a bias towards locations with a more ‘worked-up’ scheme. There is equal potential to deliver a local centre at Area 8 as there is at Area 4, as conceded by the Councils at the June 2015 examination hearings.

Para 9.64 states: “Although Area 8 is best placed to access Alvechurch railway station as an alternative, this movement is still hampered by the north-bound hourly bus service from Redditch. In order to effectively access rail travel from Area 8, commuters would need to drive or cycle to the stations.” Firstly, an hourly service is not infrequent, and could certainly be made use of ‘effectively’ by a significant number of rail commuters (and commuters to Birmingham). Secondly, we would emphasise again that there will be good potential to upgrade the service.

Landscape / topography

Para 9.68 states: “A number of the Areas are undulating to a greater or lesser degree, in particular Areas 3, 4, 6and 11. However undulating topography can provide the opportunity for potential development containment.” Area 8 is described at para 9.26 as ‘gently undulating’, and so should be added to the list.

Para 9.70 describes the topography of Area 4. AECOM/BAAG wish to state the following in response:

The boundaries to Area 4 are Curr lane (in part, as the proposed development is set on both sides of the lane), Pumphouse Lane to the East, Gypsy Lane to the West and the A448 to the North. Copyholt Lane and Holyoakes Lane, to which the narrative refers, have no connection to the proposed developed area so do not provide natural containment. It is hard to see how Curr Lane can be seen as defensible boundary when the proposed development will breach one end of Curr Lane. From Curr Lane the land rises steeply up to the ridge line and the A448 indicating a lack of containment within the wider countryside.

Para 9.72 states: “The Redditch bowl is a phrase which describes the landform surrounding the town... This provides strong ridge lines in which to contain development, contiguous with the Town.” Area 8 is within the Redditch Bowl, whilst Area 4 is not.

Paras 9.78 and 9.85 conclude on topography/landscape, both stating that Area 8 is unable “to be contained by topography; neither does the topography provide any natural buffers from views into the site from elsewhere.” AECOM/BAAG suggest there is containment, particularly within the wider landscape (relative to Area 4).

Para 9.84 dismisses landscape quality (i.e. the distinction between medium and high sensitivity landscapes) as a key factor. This is challenged, including on the basis that Area 4 is visible from an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Landscape sensitivity is clearly an important matter, and one that could so easily be explored through a dedicated evidence-base study.



6

Heritage

Para 9.91 deals with the heritage constraints at Area 4, concluding that harm ‘may be mitigated’ through policy. There is no discussion of the need to avoid impacts as far as possible (ahead of relying on mitigation). Elsewhere (see para 9.109) the Councils do rely on this hierarchical approach.

Para 9.97 deals with urban form and ‘connectivity’ as a heritage consideration, stating that Area 8 “is poorly connected to Redditch… This is a significant reason why Area 8 was not considered to be a preferred area for development. ” Firstly, AECOM/BAAG would question the conflation of connectivity and heritage issues; and secondly, we suggest that a distinctive feature of the historic urban form of Redditch - as a New Town - is the integration of open space.

Biodiversity

Para 9.123 concludes that: “… habitat or presence of protected species is not a key determining factor in the site selection process, it is more a case that surveys should be carried out to investigate the habitat type if this is unknown and if protected species are found this would need to be mitigated as part of the development process...” AECOM/BAAG suggest that simply reviewing on-site habitats before concluding that impacts can be mitigated does not equate to a strategic (landscape scale) approach to planning positively for networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure (NPPF paras 114 & 117). Worcestershire Wildlife Trust’s response to the SA consultation highlighted concerns about proposals for Area 4 on the basis that the ‘corridor’ of Bow Brook is an area of sensitivity and opportunity (see website of the ‘Bow Brook Project’); however, these strategic / landscape scale issues are not referenced within the Narrative.

Public Rights of Way

Para 9.132 states that Public Rights of Way are “not necessarily constraints in planning terms which are viewed negatively.” AECOM/BAAG suggest that urbanisation of the Monarch’s way long distance path is a notable ‘negative’.

Agricultural land

Para 9.140 - which deals with agricultural land quality - is difficult to follow, including as it implies that there is no alternative to the preferred spatial strategy.

It is also unclear, from the Councils’ text, whether the Councils acknowledge Area 4 to be relatively sensitive. It is noted that in May 2015 the SA ‘score’ assigned to Area 4, under the agricultural land criterion, was modified to reflect an understanding that Area 4 is relatively sensitive (two years after evidence was provided to indicate Grade 1 agricultural land, as discussed under para 8.7).

AECOM/BAAG suggest that, given knowledge of Grade 1 agricultural land, Area 4 cannot be allocated until other areas around Redditch (that might be allocated instead of Area 4) have been surveyed using the ‘Post 1988’ criteria. We note that Natural England recently advised that: “Decision making should begin only after sufficient reliable site specific ALC evidence has been gathered. Where no reliable information is available, it would be reasonable to expect that developers should commission a new ALC survey for any sites they wished to put forward...”

3

3 Natural England response to the Draft Guildford Local Plan (2014) at:

https://getinvolved.guildford.gov.uk/consult.ti/DLPSS14/viewRepresentation?repid=6161845&nextURL=%2Fconsult%2Eti%2FDLPSS14%2FlistRepresentations%3FagentUID%3D%26objectorUID%3D11152737%26byUID%3D11152737%26byCommonName%3D%26docid%3D%26repid%3D%26partId%3D%26repidstyle%3Dexact%26repstatusList%3DM%26repTypeList%3D1%252C2%26lastModifiedDate%3D%26searchterm%3Dpost%25201988%26mailmerge%3DN%26searchchildren%3DY%26hasAgent%3D-%26pageaction%3DF%26%26sort%3Dsubmitdate%26dir%3Ddesc%26startRow%3D1








7

Utilities

Para 9.161 identifies that Area 8 performs best from a sewage treatment capacity perspective, but dismisses the matter simply because there are no ‘showstopper’ issues. It is therefore unclear whether the preferred approach will lead to an increased risk of capacity being breached (and therefore impacts to water quality).

Also, with regards to water quality, we note that there is no reference to Worcestershire Wildlife Trust’s objection (2015) to development at Area 4, on the basis of impacts to Bow Brook.

Transport

Para 9.167 - which is presented under the heading ‘Transport’ - is difficult to follow. It is apparent that transport matters are not being considered with other factors held constant. For example, the following statement is made:

“The scenario tested which includes Area 8 would focus trips on Redditch more than other scenarios although wouldn’t not allow the required level of growth to be met unless site boundaries for this location were extended beyond the already weak Green Belt boundaries identified for this location.”

N.B. This text, and other text at Para 9.167 serves to create confusion regarding consideration of scenarios. For example, it is stated that: “The option of spreading the development across a larger spread of Areas closer to the built form of Redditch was also tested, this helps to spread the load of trips although, this option became less achievable due to the heritage constraints on Area 5”

Conclusions on Relevant Criteria for Area Selection

There are a number of points to make here -

Paras 9.175 & 9.176 present a two tier approach to classifying issues/criteria. AECOM/BAAG is concerned that this step is being taken at such a late stage in the plan-making process (indeed, it would seem that such matters should be considered under Regulation 18, and through SA scoping work / consultation).

AECOM/BAAG would highlight that factors judged to ‘weigh heavily’ are those that (in the view of the Councils) weigh in favour of Area 4 and against Area 8, noting that the Inspector has in the past (Interim Note of 13

th January 2015)

emphasised the importance of new work being undertaken in a manner that does not seek to justify any particular outcome. The clear concern voiced at the 2015 hearings was that the SA ‘scoring’ was being used to justify a particular outcome, and the concern now is that subjective judgements regarding ‘weighting’ are being similarly utilised.

We would question how ‘topography’ can be a factor that weighs heavily, whilst ‘landscape’ is a factor that does not (see discussion above).

The Councils identify ‘Potential to provide improvements for existing communities’ as a key factor without any justification in the preceding analysis. This factor/criteria is entirely unclear, but if it relates to the potential to provide a new local centre as part of any development scheme, AECOM/BAAG would wish to reiterate the point made under para 9.51.

The Councils identify ‘Ability of Areas to accommodate a sufficient level of growth sustainably’ as a key factor without any justification in the preceding analysis. This factor/criteria is entirely unclear.

The Councils identify ‘Access to employment…’ as a minor factor without any justification in the preceding analysis.



8

Para 9.177 seems to suggest a possible ‘third tier’ of issues/criteria that are of overriding importance, e.g. ‘accessibility to the Town Centre’.

Para 9.177 states: “The process has been informed by the SA, including the consideration and rejection of reasonable alternatives.” It is not clear that the process of determining key issues/criteria has been informed by consideration of alternatives, nor would one expect that it would have been.

Consideration of Alternative Scenarios

Para 9.178 discusses the process of site options appraisal that has occurred, before concluding that: “It demonstrates that all reasonable alternatives, including ADR land (Areas 18 and part of Area 3) and the large peripheral parks (Areas 3A and 7) have been examined as part of the SA process.” This conclusion is refuted. AECOM/BAAG’s position has always been, with regards to consideration of alternatives, that the process should have involved: 1) Consideration of site options; 2) Identification and appraisal (and possible refinement over time) of reasonable alternatives, i.e. alternative growth scenarios where each comprises a combination of site options; and 3) Consultation on the preferred approach alongside an SA Report that presents information on the reasonable alternatives.

Para 9.180 states that: “… clearly the Area selection decision is being made on the basis of most suitable Areas to emerge from the selection process. These are Areas 4, 6, 3R and 18. However, the Inspector wanted the scenarios set out in the original HGDS to be updated and this has been done…” This serves to demonstrate that the Councils do not see the value in appraising/consulting on alternative growth scenarios, despite SEA requirements arguably necessitating this, and it undoubtedly being the case that such work would enable effective engagement in a way that complex appraisal of numerous site options (any combination of which might ultimately be selected) does not.

Para 9.181 justifies the decision not to consider growth scenarios involving a degree of added dispersal (i.e. less reliance on very large sites), with reference to ‘economies of scale’. AECOM/BAAG suggest that this paragraph is insufficient justification for dismissing options that would involve some additional dispersal (e.g. reliance on urban extensions of c.1,000 homes, as opposed to 2,500+). There is plentiful evidence of the Councils having dismissed scenarios involving greater dispersal at a (relatively) early stage in the process; for example, it is noted that the HGDS (2013; see para 6.4.87) stated that: “Some parts of [Area 8] like the south east part of the brook could be considered more suitable for development, however this alone would not provide the required housing to meet Redditch needs.” AECOM/BAAG’s reports of 2014 and 2015 (XB1/8, SA037 and XB1/8a) explicitly requested that the Councils explore growth scenarios involving a higher degree of dispersal (albeit recognising the need for strategic scale schemes).

Para 9.180 lists four ‘additional scenarios’, with each scenario then discussed in turn. It is not clear what these scenarios are additional to. Are there other scenarios not discussed in the narrative?

Paras 9.188 - 9.197 then present ‘consideration of alternative scenarios’. Points to note are:

The discussion does not equate to an appraisal. Most of the text simply describes the scenarios.

The suggestion that Area 8’s capacity equates to just 1,000 homes is a clear ‘rabbit out of the hat’, given that plan-making to date (including engagement) has reflected an assumed capacity of 2,451 (see HGDS, p 176).

The outcome of the discussion appears to be that there are two reasonable alternatives in relation to Redditch’s expansion. Can the Councils confirm this?



9

Para 9.198 states: “It is not considered necessary to change the SA to the BORLP4 of May 2015 (the most recent SA) because it already includes a comparative assessment of all the Areas, summarised in Appendix D including Areas 3A, 7 and 3R (described as Webheath Strategic Site (part of Area 3); and 18 (described as A435, part of Area 18).” AECOM/BAAG question this indifference to timely appraisal of / consultation on alternative growth scenarios.

2.6 Comments on Chapter 10: “Site capacities”

Para 10.5 states: “The developer produced a masterplan and detailed discussions with planning and conservation officers has resulted in revisions to the masterplan...” AECOM/BAAG query this statement, as there is no evidence of a revised masterplan that takes account of the two ‘no development’ areas identified within the ‘Lanehouse Farm: Setting of heritage assets assessment’ report (OED/46c). This report is of critical importance, and should be referenced.

2.7 Comments on Chapter 11: “Delivery and phasing”

We note para 11.2, which states: “Due to the nature of the housing market area and the need to deliver housing in a phased approach it could be an added advantage for the housing market that development is located in multiple locations.” This is an argument in favour of a strategy involving less concentration.

2.8 Comments on Chapters 12 - 15

Chapter 3 has already provided a ‘summary of key stages’, and so these chapters should be appendices.

Chapter 12 purports to deal with the ‘Preferred options’ stage, but in fact only deals with the ‘Housing Growth Development Study’ stage. Also, it is noted that there is no discussion of the role of SA.

Chapter 13 deals with ‘Submission and Consultation of the Redditch And Bromsgrove Local Plans’. This is confusing.

Para 13.3 states: “In total there were 68 respondents submitting cross boundary representations. Although representations aren’t recorded in terms of household numbers, the Councils received some multiple representations from the same household. Therefore to understand the scale of the response 68 respondents interacted at Proposed Submission stage and there are 34,065 households in Redditch and 38,290 households in Bromsgrove (2011 Census) indicating a low response rate.” This statement conflates respondents and representations; and overlooks the fact that some respondents were organisations that represent many members (e.g. BAAG). Also, it could be argued that a ‘low response rate’ would have been to some extent symptomatic of the Councils not presenting engaging information (e.g. information on alternative growth scenarios).

Para 15.18 quotes the letter that the Councils published on the examination website on 31

st December 2015, alongside the Narrative. Addressing the

Inspector, the Councils state that: “In your note of the 18th September you ask for the available evidence to be presented in a manner that demonstrates that all seven [focused areas] have been assessed in a comprehensive and co-ordinated way and that the councils should explain their choice with reference to the evidence. This has been done.” AECOM/BAAG disagree. The Narrative does not rectify past deficiencies in the technical analysis. Furthermore, there is also the matter of consultation; and a need to remember that the choice at hand is not simply a choice between seven mutually exclusive locations for urban extensions.



10

2.9 Comments on Chapters 16: “Conclusions on the site selection process”

Para 16.1 explains that a large number of site options have been considered, and it is not the case that the number of site options ‘on the table’ has been refined over time. This is a major weakness in the process. Consideration (whether through appraisal work or consultation) of a large number of site options - any combination of could potentially be delivered, with resulting in-combination effects - is not conducive to effective deliberation.

With regards to Para 16.2, AECOM/BAAG would again refute the suggestion that SA ‘has to be at a basic level’. This is a misleading statement. Also, we would highlight that this process - now seemingly devalued - has been relied upon heavily in the past (e.g. at the time of identifying ‘focused areas’).

Para 16.3 lists ‘assessment factors’, but is not a comprehensive list (i.e. the list does not tie in with the discussion presented within Chapter 9). This is confusing.

Para 16.4 states that: “Some factors, such as agricultural land quality or access to secondary schools, are similar for all Areas.” This is a highly misleading statement. At the very least, it is known that there is the strong possibility that agricultural land quality varies between the various sites under consideration. The uncertainty involved should be duly communicated.

Para 16.8 states that: “The choice that had to be made therefore was which Area, or combination of Areas, could most sustainably deliver the required amount of development and associated infrastructure with the least negative impacts.” This is misleading as the Councils have been clear, since the time of the HGDS, that a single area cannot meet cross-boundary need. Rather, the choice has (since at least 2013) related to the combination of areas.

Determining a preferred combination has essentially been the objective of the plan-making process since (at least) 2013, and hence the Councils should ‘reasonably’ have considered alternative approaches to addressing this objective.

4

Para 16.9 is confusing, including the suggestion that: “Combinations of each have been examined through the SA process”.

Para 16.11 discusses the ‘high landscape sensitivity’ associated with Area 6, explaining that this has meant the need to avoid high slopes. It is not clear why similar considerations do not apply to Area 4.

Para 16.13 suggests that a benefit of Area 4, as a location for growth, is “close proximity to the land to the south and east of the Town.” This makes no sense (including on the basis that Area 4 is located to the west of Redditch).

Para 16.14 concludes that Area 4: “is able to connect well into the existing urban form of Redditch at Webheath.” However, no consideration is given to the fact that the scheme is linear, tracking the A448 away from Redditch.

Para 16.15 states that: “Whilst [Area 4] does not have overall strong defensible Green Belt boundaries on all sides…” Conversely, Appendix I identifies a ‘strength’ of Area 4 as: “Ability to identify strong defensible GB boundary”.

4 Article 5(1) of the SEA Directive requires consideration of ‘reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the

geographical scope of the plan or programme”. The question of what must ‘reasonably’ be the focus of alternatives appraisal has been considered recently by the Courts, most notably through ‘Friends of the Earth England v The Welsh Ministers’, where at para 113 it is stated that: “I have set out the scope of “reasonable alternatives”, namely they are options which are considered by the decision-maker to be viable in the sense of being capable of meeting the objectives.”



11

Para 16.19 begins: “Whilst benefits were identified in selecting Area 8, such as the possibility of providing the Bordesley Bypass, the distance to leisure facilities and recreation, its perceived proximity to the Town Centre, and other factors outweighed these.” AECOM/BAAG notes that:

the Bordesley Bypass is not mentioned in earlier analysis, nor proximity to leisure facilities (Abbey Stadium Sports Centre); and

reference to ‘perceived proximity to the Town Centre’ is meaningless.

Para 16.19 goes on to raise the issue of impacts to a ‘green infrastructure linkage to the wider countryside’. This is not an issue that is discussed in earlier analysis. Furthermore, it is a statement that does not appear to have any basis in evidence.

Para 16.19 also suggests that: “Development could also encourage commuting northwards, exerting pressure on the A441 and the A435.” However, this is another impact that does not appear to have any basis in preceding analysis or evidence. It is also not clear that commuting is a ‘negative’, given sub-regional economic objectives (which are not referenced in the Narrative).

2.10 Comments on Appendix I: “SWOT Analysis”

The appropriateness of SWOT analysis at this late stage in the plan-making process is highly questionable.

AECOM/BAAG does not have any comments on the specifics of the SWOT analysis (given the discussion above), although we would highlight that flood risk is double counted as a ‘weakness’ of Area 8 (i.e. it is assigned two rows).



12

3. PLAN-MAKING / SA PROCESS

3.1 Introduction

The aim of this section is to consider the plan-making process, recapping and updating points made previously. It is appropriate to discuss ‘process’, given that this is an explicit focus of the Narrative. However, AECOM/BAAG does not wish to unhelpfully ‘go over old ground’, and so efforts are made here to ensure maximum brevity.

3.2 Recapping on points made previously

There is a need to engage effectively with stakeholders when preparing a Local Plan, and Regulations

5 provide for this primarily by requiring consultation on a draft

(‘proposed submission’) plan alongside an SA Report that presents certain specified information, including information on ‘reasonable alternatives’.

The SA Reports published alongside the proposed submission versions of the BORLP4 and BDP in September 2013 did not present the required information, which will have impacted significantly on opportunities for effective consultation. This matter was explored in detail within AECOM/BAAG’s 2014 report (XB1/8, section 2.2), with conclusions then repeated in Box 1 of both 2015 reports (SA037 and XB1/8a).

With a view to making good deficiencies in the SA process, in November 2014 BOR submitted a ‘Sustainability Appraisal Refresh’ document, alongside a letter listing seven ways in which the document had been supplemented. AECOM/BAAG’s 2014 report (XB1/8) discussed each of these points in turn (see Table 1), with comments then distilled into three points within the 2015 reports (SA037 & XB1/8a) - see Box 2.

Box 2: AECOM/BAAG views - expressed in 2015 - on the ‘SA Refresh’ document

Numerous statements on the merits of the preferred approach to cross-boundary development were supplemented, with references to alternatives added. However, the statements remained entirely unhelpful. They failed to reference specific alternatives, comprised little substance and were characterised by inconsistency and inaccuracy. The effect will have been to stifle debate.

An Appendix was added comprising an appraisal of all site options in isolation; however, presenting information on site options does not equate to presenting information on ‘alternatives’ in this context, given that site options are not mutually exclusive.

The Council suggested that the effect of the Refresh was that: “The document is now explicit in its reasoning to explain why some sites are selected and some are not.” This statement was strongly refuted. The Refresh document failed to enable readers to understand the merits of alternative growth scenarios, and why the Council supports the preferred option.

AECOM/BAAG’s 2014 report (XB1/8) not only critiqued the plan-making / SA process, but also recommended an approach to making good deficiencies (see section 2.3), with key recommendations then repeated in Box 2 of both 2015 reports (SA037 & XB1/8a). Furthermore, the ‘next steps’ section of the 2014 report reiterated the importance of robust alternatives consideration, with the key points then repeated within both 2015 reports. The key message was that the Councils should be prepared to give careful consideration to the question of: What are the reasonable alternatives? The ‘next steps’ section of the 2014 report also drew attention to recent Planning Inspectorate and High Court precedents, with quotes repeated in Box 3 of both 2015 reports and the conclusion drawn that: The effect of the High Court Judgement is clearly to highlight that requirements around ‘reasonable alternatives’ need not be onerous, but equally are worthy of consideration through the courts and hence should not be flouted.

5 See Regulations 18 and 19 of the Local Planning Regulations 2012.



13

In light of AECOM/BAAGs 2014 report (XB1/8), plus and other factors, the decision was taken to postpone January 2015’s examination hearings, thereby enabling time for further work. AECOM/BAAG corresponded with the Councils and Planning Inspector (via the Programme Officer) at this time, recommending that the opportunity be taken to hold a full and proper consultation on the preferred growth scenario and alternatives.

Some initial indications were positive - namely clear statements by the Councils that the intention was to step back and consider “alternative strategies to deliver housing need”. However, AECOM/BAAG raised concerns regarding the way that the further work was being advertised - namely in a way that gave no explanation of the point, and will have served to disengage the public. These matters were discussed in AECOM/BAAG’s reports of May 2015 (SA037, section 4.4) and June 2015 (XB1/8a, section 2.2).

Ultimately, in March 2015 the Councils published for consultation the ‘BORLP4 Revised SA’ and the ‘Updated BDP SA’, with a letter published alongside to explain that the consultations were being held in-line with Regulation 13 of the [SEA] Regulations 2004. As explained within AECOM/BAAG’s reports of May 2015 (SA037, section 4.4) and June 2015 (XB1/8a, section 2.2), this was an inaccurate statement to make, as Regulation 13 deals with consultation on the draft plan and its SA report.

6

AECOM/BAAG made representations on the two SA documents in May 2015 (SA037), which the Councils then responded to in the most part (OED/35); however, none of the points raised led to changes being made to the SA documents. Tables 1 and 2 of AECOM/BAAG’s June 2015 report (XB1/8a) considered the Councils’ responses to consultation, and some key points are highlighted in Box 3.

6 The point of consultation under Reg 13 is simply to inform subsequent plan finalisation. However, the Councils gave no

indication - in their advertisements (e.g. on the website) or within the consultation documents - that consultation responses might have this effect. Rather, the suggestion was simply that responses would be used to ‘finalise the SA Reports’. The Councils will argue that the point was to finalise the SA Reports so as to enable informed discussion at the subsequent examination hearings (e.g. see within OED/33a: “Consultation is on the revised SA. All other documents are available as part of the Hearing.”); however, this point of process was not explained at the time of the consultation, nor is it clear that such a process is acceptable. Note, for example, Ashdown Forest Economic Development Llp v SS Communities & Local Government [2014] where Mr Justice Sales finds that: “The procedures involved in independent examination of a plan by an inspector, including by examination in public, appear to me to be a consultation process which is capable of fulfilling the consultation requirement under Article 6 of the Directive... I emphasise again, however, that I have not heard argument on this issue so this view must be regarded as provisional.” [Emphasis added]



14

Box 3: Selected rows from Tables 1 and 2 of AECOM/BAAG’s June 2015 report (XB1/8a)

May 2015 representation7 Councils’ response

8 Further commentary

Alternative housing growth scenarios are not clearly presented.

Disagree – scenarios are presented in the context of the need to accommodate a significant scale of housing through urban extensions.

Our point stands

Discussion of alternative growth scenarios is weak, to the extent that alternatives are alluded to but not named or described in any way.

Disagree – clear rationale developed through the evolution of the Plan generally and through the HGDS in particular.

The Councils’ response misses the point. We wish to see info on alternatives published within an SA Report, for consultation alongside the draft plan.

The NTS does not present an appraisal of alternative approaches housing growth scenarios

Disagree - the cross boundary working section does this (page 19) and narrative on alternatives is shared with SA of BORLP4.

The discussion presented is not an appraisal.

NTS does not present appraisal findings in relation to reasonable alternatives

Disagree – reasonable alternatives are discussed at p.xiv

The table at paragraph 27 (on p.xiv) does not present an appraisal of alternative growth scenarios. No cross boundary site options, let alone scenarios, are referenced.

Lengthy discussion of alternatives consideration that has occurred in the past of questionable relevance now

The discussion of alternatives that has occurred in the past is of relevance as it provides a narrative on how decisions have been arrived at. This ‘tells the story’ of the development of the Plan and as URS state in their submission in December 2014 ‘ SA Reports should have explained the ‘story’ of alternatives consideration/ appraisal.

The SA Report must explain how the reasonable alternatives - as they stand at the current time - were arrived at with reference to past work, potentially to include alternatives appraisal.

However, in this instance, it is not the case that information on high level alternatives appraisal from a number of years ago is discussed for this reason.

Revised SA is states “The reasoning for the selected strategy has been detailed further to ensure the justification is explicit”. This hasn’t been achieved.

9

The Council has made every effort to clarify the selection process over time in the SA and Non-Technical summary.

The primary aim of the SA Report is not to demonstrate a robust selection process, but to present stakeholders with a clear choice, through presenting information on alternatives.

7 Condensed for clarity

8 Reproduced verbatim

9 This representation was made by “Bewsher” (representation SA007), rather than AECOM/BAAG



15

3.3 Updating points on the plan-making / SA process

Subsequent to the ‘Sustainability Appraisals’ consultation the Councils published revised SA documents (with tracked changes, non-conducive to accessibility) on 20

th

May 2015. Most changes were made to ‘Appendix D: Comparative Appraisal of Potential Development Sites’ of the BORLP4 document, which presents a highly formulaic assessment of 23 development site options against 45 criteria. This Appendix, which the Councils rely upon heavily, was first published only in November 2014, and had already been re-published in a substantially altered form (March 2015).

On 23rd

and 24th June 2015 AECOM/BAAG attended the resumed examination

hearings. Our brief notes of discussions at the hearings are as follows -

On the first morning the Inspector asked a series of questions of the Councils, ultimately establishing serious weaknesses in relation to the Housing Growth Development Study SA process / documentation.

The Inspector was correct to draw this conclusion; however, AECOM/BAAG do not wish to focus on this aspect of the overall plan-making / SA process, as to do so would be to give credence to the suggestion that separate SA processes can be underway in support of a single plan-making process. They cannot.

The first afternoon comprised discussion of glaring inaccuracies and inconsistencies within the ‘Appendix D’ analysis (discussed above).

At one point the Councils sought to draw a line under discussions, quoting the SEA Regulations as requiring analysis of only a ‘reasonable’ quality. AECOM/BAAG promptly pointed out that the Regulations state no such thing.

AECOM/BAAG sought to steer discussion towards consideration of alternative growth scenarios, drawing upon the SA documentation.

This meant drawing upon the c.60 short statements on cross-boundary development embedded within Appendix B (‘Overall Sustainability Implications of the Local Plan’), at Table 4.3 in the main report (‘Sustainability Effects of the BORLP4’) and at para 27 within the NTS.

AECOM/BAAG reviewed each statement in detail in both the 2014 and 2015 reports (see XB1/8 & XB1/8a), highlighting many fundamental concerns; however, none were subsequently addressed. Indeed, nil changes were made to the statements in 2015 (despite site options appraisal work).

10

10

To reiterate, AECOM/BAAG’s position was (as stated XB1/8a) and still is that: The statements on cross-boundary development are the location where the average reader - i.e. a non-specialist reader who is not prepared to trawl through the analysis of site options in isolation and piece together an understanding of alternative growth scenarios - would go to find out about alternative growth scenarios; however, the statements are wholly deficient.



16

Subsequent to the examination hearings the Inspector published a Post Hearing Note on 10

th July 2015. Reflections on the Note are as follows:

The section dealing with ‘Site Selection Methodology & [SA]’ begins by making reference to the requirement to consider ‘alternative sites’. AECOM/BAAG’s view (expressed through reports and an email to the PO on 15

th January 2015) has

always been that the primary matter at hand is consideration of alternative growth scenarios, and hence the role of ‘site selection’ should not be overstated. Site options are not alternatives where there is no mutually exclusive choice to be made between them. Having said this, we recognise that the Post Hearing Note does go on to discuss “alternative scenarios (i.e. combinations of development options)”.

There is a detailed discussion of the procedural flaws that become apparent from a close review of the HGDS SA documentation, with the Inspector correctly highlighting a ‘circular argument’ that will have hindered effective engagement and ultimately reduces confidence in the preferred strategy. This is clearly concerning; however, as stated above, AECOM/BAAG do not wish to comment on these matters. We would wish to focus on the plan SA process / documentation only.

Under the heading ‘BORLP4 SA (May 2015)’ the Inspector highlights concerns around site options analysis, and points out that: “… given that the Councils have sought in part to justify their site selection choices with references to the SA work, and noting that since submission a further three versions of the BORLP4 SA have been issued, it is inevitable that a spotlight will be shone on specific scoring decisions.” AECOM/BAAG might have wished to see a clear reference to the implications for effective engagement; and also reference to the c.60 statements on cross boundary development (and their consistency with site options analysis).

On 14th September 2015 the Councils then published a proposed programme of

further work, suggesting a need for a 16 month programme that “directly focuses on the allocation of the cross boundary sites.” The Councils also proposed that the programme be published for consultation for 28 days.

On 18th

September 2015 the Inspector then provided the Councils with a response to the proposed programme, finding a 16 month programme to be unacceptable (e.g. because other evidence would become out of date) and hence ‘a more focussed exercise’ as necessary (if the examination is to continue). The Inspector went on to suggest the need for a ‘narrative’ that presents the available evidence and ultimately explains the justification for the preferred strategy.

On 22nd

October 2015 the Councils then published a response to the Inspector, stating acceptance (reached after having ‘deliberated’ matters) of the Inspector’s suggested approach. The Councils also reached a conclusion that consultation on the programme / approach to further work was ‘clearly unnecessary’.

On 31st

December 2015 the Councils published a ‘Narrative of the Site Selection Process’ for consultation. AECOM/BAAG’s review of the Narrative is presented in Section 2, above; however, one point to note here is that neither the advertisement on the examination website, nor the consultation document, nor the letter published alongside gave any indication of the point of the consultation. There was nil discussion of the aims of the consultation or ‘next steps’, with the website simply stating that: “Comments are invited on the… documents”.



17

3.4 Conclusions on the plan-making / SA process

The Councils undertook a deficient plan-making / SA process prior to submission (i.e. under Regulations 18 and 19 of the Local Planning Regulations), and then failed to make good deficiencies post submission. AECOM/BAAG’s reports of 2014 and 2015 highlighted deficiencies and suggested how to rectify matters (see summary above).

The Inspector’s Note of 10th July 2015 discussed the possibility of withdrawing the

plans so as to allow “a more comprehensive assessment that addresses the needs of Redditch in a wider context” [i.e. a regional context, given certain emerging issues]. Referring to SA work undertaken, the Inspector stated that: “… if this process is to be revisited yet again… then I would urge the Council to ensure that its specific scoring decisions are both realistic and consistent with the wider evidence.”

Subsequently, the Councils proposed a 16 month programme of further work. However, the Inspector’s response contested this proposal, instead suggesting simply a narrative to explain past work. AECOM/BAAG is concerned that the Inspector’s response was symptomatic of the new context to Local Plan examinations, as established by the Ministerial Letter of 21

st July 2015 (and as recently described by the

Swale Local Plan Inspector;11

and lamented by a retired Senior Inspector12

).

The Narrative ultimately published (i.e. placed on the examination website) is in some ways a helpful document. It usefully takes the reader through the steps taken over the past eleven years, and to some extent discusses the merits of the preferred strategy with reference to alternatives. AECOM/BAAG recognises that much work has been undertaken, as explained on the first page of the Narrative:

“This work culminating in the selection of these sites and the rejection of others has taken place over nearly a decade. The work has been extensive and is contained in a wide range of reports and assessments including housing growth reports and sustainability appraisals assessments.”

However, simply undertaking eleven years of work does not in itself justify a Local Plan, even given the new context to Local Plan examinations.

The Narrative does not make good the deficiencies in the plan-making / SA process. In particular, it remains the case that there has not been a full and proper consultation on the strategy for Redditch’s expansion, informed by an SA Report that formally appraises the merits of the preferred approach and reasonable alternatives.

The Councils will argue that procedural obligations were met, and thus opportunity for effective engagement provided, upon publication of the May 2015 SA documents; however, this is debatable. Simply placing these documents online and making them available for the examination hearings may not equate to due process as envisaged by the Aarhus Convention (on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters), the SEA Directive (see articles 5, 6 and 8) the Local Planning Regulations (see Regs 18 and 19) and Statements of Community Involvement (see www.redditchbc.gov.uk/media/734039/SCI.pdf).

11

Within an ‘Interim Findings’ note of February 2016, the Swale Local Plan Inspector describes the current ‘context’ to Local Plan examinations, stating that: “In the lead up to the examination hearings several respondents argued that in view of the large amount of new evidence the examination hearings should be postponed or the Plan withdrawn. In considering this request I took account of the following: [1] On 21 July 2015 the Minister of State for Housing and Planning issued a Written Statement on Local Plans. This recognised that Councils and others who have produced the Local Plan have committed considerable resources and should be able to rely on Planning Inspectors to support them in the Planning process.” See archive.swale.gov.uk/assets/Planning-General/Planning-Policy/Evidence-Base/Interim-Findings-2016/ID9b-Final-04022016.pdf 12

Within an article entitled ‘End game for Local Plans? (see www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/Journals/Dec_2015_Sample.pdf) retired Senior Inspector David Vickery suggests that: “ Inevitably… the easiest and quickest examination approach will be applied. Inspectors will become very wary of controversy and of coming to an unfavourable conclusion on a plan’s soundness.”

http://www.redditchbc.gov.uk/media/734039/SCI.pdf

http://archive.swale.gov.uk/assets/Planning-General/Planning-Policy/Evidence-Base/Interim-Findings-2016/ID9b-Final-04022016.pdf

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/Journals/Dec_2015_Sample.pdf



18

Moreover, the May 2015 SA documents do not provide the information required of SA Reports (as specified by Annex 1 of the SEA Directive). AECOM/BAAG has repeatedly advised on the content of the Councils’ SA documents (see Appendix II), but recommendations have not been actioned.

At the current time, AECOM/BAAG’s June 2015 conclusions on the plan-making/SA process - see Box 4 - still stand:

Box 4: AECOM/BAAG’s June 2015 report (XB1/8a) conclusions on the plan-making/SA process

This Hearing Statement discusses procedural weaknesses that go to the heart of the plan’s justification… In terms of ‘next steps’, it is not unreasonable to request that -

1. The Councils undertake work to define a reasonable range of alternative growth scenarios, drawing on years of past technical work and consultation.

The alternatives should be easily understandable, i.e. should be capable of being presented across a series of posters (thereby suited to town/village hall consultation events) and suited to being reported in the local paper.

2. The draft plan is published for consultation alongside an SA Report that presents the required information, including information on alternative growth scenarios (and thereby information on ‘reasonable alternatives’).

The required information on reasonable alternatives equates to: A) outline reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with; B) alternatives appraisal findings; and C) and explanation (in ‘outline reasons’ terms) of why the Councils believe the preferred approach to be justified in light of alternatives appraisal.

3. The Councils finalise the plan, in light of appraisal findings and consultation responses, and explain reasons within a statement published alongside the adopted plan.



19

4. CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, it is clear from our analysis of the Councils’ work that they have failed to address the concerns of the Planning Inspector.

The Councils are unable to justify the preferred strategy for the expansion of Redditch, which is undoubtedly the key matter being addressed through the two plans. This conclusion is reached on the basis of evidence highlighting a plan-making process characterised by: insufficient opportunity for informed and effective consultation on the proposed approach and alternatives; and poor quality technical analysis.

The question of whether the required Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process has been followed is a useful and important way to frame questions regarding the plan-making process as a whole. AECOM/BAAG’s position has always been that the SA process has been severely deficient, and the most recent steps - including examination hearings in June 2015 and publication of the ‘Narrative’ - do nothing to alter this view.

AECOM/BAAG recognises the time and resources that have gone into plan-making (and SA), and that the Ministerial Statement means that a degree of pragmatism must now be applied when examining Local Plans (whereby it is pragmatic to get a plan in place). However, these particular plans cannot be found sound given the extent of procedural deficiencies and weaknesses in the technical analysis.

These plans were submitted for examination two years ago, meaning that only one other Local Plan nationally has been under examination for longer.

13 Mindful of this,

and the Inspector’s statement of July 2015 - “However, this would require these concerns to be addressed in a positive and robust manner: if substantive concerns were still to remain after such an exercise then I would be reluctant to perpetuate the examinations still further” - AECOM/BAAG respectfully request that the plans are withdrawn.

Were the plans to be withdrawn, a situation can be envisaged whereby the plans are re-submitted within a relatively short space of time. The extent of work undertaken to date could negate the need for formal consultation under Regulation 18, meaning that the Councils could progress directly to publication under Regulation 19 [N.B. This scenario assumes that ‘reasonable alternatives’ remain on the table at the time of Regulation 19 publication].

13

The Rochdale Local Plan was submitted in May 2013. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-plans [and note that the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and South Worcestershire Local Plan were both recently found to be ‘sound’].

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-plans



20

APPENDIX I: BAAG MEMBERS

Adams Paul

Allen Brian

Allen Judith

Arnott Brian

Atkins Linda

Bateman Jill

Bateman Simon

Bayliss Andy

Beard Keith

Bloomfield Belinda

Bloomfield Steve

Boss Suzi

Boss Andy

Boss Roger

Brazier Chrissie

Brazier June

Brazier Mike

Brewsher Graham

Brewsher Roz

Brock Lisa

Brunt Guy

Carless Sarah

Carless Simon

Caswell Dee

Cotterell David

Davies Karen

Davies Tony

Davies Edward

Davies Wendy

Davis Rod

Deakin James

Dugan Ian

Dugan David

Dugan Louise

Dugan June

Dunstall John

Dykes Peter

Dykes Mary

Dyson Anne

Dyson Barrie

Emms Helen

Emms Tim



21

Every Liz

Ferns Sam

Fish Anne

Fish Jeremy

Fokes Clive

Frost Paul

Gateley Pam

Glainger Malcolm

Glainger Sandy

Godwin Julie

Hagger Gee

Hagger Pete

Hampshire Barbara

Hampshire Grenville

Hancock Lyn

Harper Jean

Harper Phil

Harris Ben

Harris Kate

Harris John

Harrop John

Harrop Sue

Hartland Jo

Hill Camilla

Hill Tim

Hussey Francesca

Jameson Pam

Jeffrey Shona

Jeffery Steve

Jenkins Dr Stephen

Keane John

Keating John

Keevil Jim

Killen Martin

Killen Melanie

Lauder Suzi

Lawson Don

Lemon Clive

Long Sharon

Manley John

Martin Dawn

Martin Richard

Matthews John

McIntosh June



22

McIntosh Mike

Meads Paul

Meede Ellie

Moffett Emma

Morgan Chris

Morgan Matthew

Moses Peter

Moss Helen

Myatt Peter

Myatt Gina

Nicholls Pam

O’Leary James

O’Rourke Kevin

O’Rourke Lisa

Overton Alison

Overton Dennis

Perry Charles

Perry Krystyna

Perry Gordon

Pettit Nigel

Rands Nick

Reading Lynne

Reading Nick

Robson Kate

Rose Andy

Rose David

Sansom Michael

Sansom Francis

Scott Elizabeth

Scott John

Seller Katie

Shaw Sue

Simms Sue

Sinclair Ben

Spence Helen

Spofforth Emma

Stafford Michael

Stafford Michelle

Stevens Elizabeth

Stevens Jan

Stevens Roy

Stewart Ian

Stiley Chloe

Stiley Olly



23

Stiley Sally Ann

Stiley Matthew

Stratton Luke

Stuart-Manley Anne

Stubbs David

Stubbs David

Teague Gail

Titterton Jennie

Titterton Simon

Tonks Debbie

Tonks Laura

Tonks Martyn

Underhill Ben

Underhill George

Underhill Karen

Underhill Jo

Underhill John

Walshe Holly

Walshe Mike

Walshe Sandra

Walshe Tom

Whitaker Jim

Whitehouse Jonathan

Winslow Janet



24

APPENDIX II: REVIEW OF THE BORLP SA REPORT

AECOM/BAAG made detailed comments on the BORLP4 SA Report in May 2014; however, no changes were made as a result. We take the opportunity to repeat some key points here.

Chapter 2 - Appraisal Methodology and Background to the Appraisal of the BORLP4

This chapter adequately sets out the parameters / ‘scope’ of appraisal. No comments.

Chapter 3 - The Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 and its Evolution

The point of this chapter is not entirely clear. It does not present an appraisal of reasonable alternatives, and perhaps its main effect will have been to suggest to readers that the plan is a fait accompli, i.e. that the Council is no longer seeking views on alternatives.

Chapter 4 - Sustainability Appraisal of the BORLP4

The appraisal of the draft plan is presented in Table 4.3, and there are perhaps three points to note -

The appraisal concludes purely positive effects, and hence fails to communicate the trade-offs that are inherent in plan-making.

The appraisal narratives are very short, and on close inspection there is no discussion of any cause/effect relationship between the plan and the baseline,

14 or reference to significance criteria

(see Annex 2 of the SEA Directive);15

nor is it the case that this information can be found in the supporting appendices. Also, there is nil discussion of the cumulative effects of the plan (i.e. the effects of the plan in combination with other plans/programmes/projects).

16

Mitigation measures are not proposed, nor is there any discussion of the way that past mitigation proposals (i.e. measures established through appraisal of earlier drafts of the plan) have fed in. Table 4.6 purports to deal with ‘proposed mitigation’; however, on inspection no mitigation is proposed. Rather, the text simply describes the plan (i.e. virtually repeats the information presented within the ‘Likely effects’ column).

17

Also, it is noted that the Chapter ends with a very weak section on ‘Proposals for monitoring’. There is no evidence that the requirement to identify ‘measures envisaged concerning monitoring’ (see SEA Directive Annex 1) in light of the draft plan appraisal has been met.

Chapter 5 - Examination of the BORLP4 and Next Steps

There is no discussion of mechanisms for engaging and influencing plan finalisation.

Non-technical Summary

This is too long, and overly technical. For example, there is an unnecessary table on Regulatory compliance, the acronym ‘SEA’ is not defined, there is an unnecessary section dealing with the ‘Post adoption statement’, and there are confusing statements such as: “all alternatives have been explicitly tested against other alternatives”.

Also, appraisal findings in relation to reasonable alternatives are not presented. The Council responded in May 2014 by stating: “Disagree – reasonable alternatives are discussed at p.xiv”. We would wish to query this point.

14

Worryingly, the Council’s response to AECOM/BAAG in May 2014 was to state that: “Disagree – significant effects are explored, by implication in relation to the baseline.” [emphasis added] 15

The Council’s response to AECOM/BAAG in May 2014 was to state that: “Disagree – SEA Directive is referenced in Section 1.1 – no need to reproduce verbatim.” This response misses the point. What is lacking is any evidence that the appraisal was undertaken in-light of the SEA Directive Annex 2 significance criteria. 16

For example, a word search for ‘Birmingham’ finds nil discussion of the City’s housing and economic growth constraints. The Council’s response to AECOM/BAAG in May 2014 was very confused (see pg. 10 of the AECOM/BAAG May 2014 repot). 17

The Council’s response to AECOM/BAAG in May 2014 makes no sense: “Disagree – proposals for mitigation are made through Plan Policy.”

Examination of the Bromsgrove District Plan and Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4

Sustainability Appraisals Consultation

Consultation response

submitted on behalf of Bentley

Area Action Group (BAAG)

May 2015


CONSULTATION RESPONSE May 2015

i

REVISION SCHEDULE

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed and approved by

1 May 2015

Response to the Bromsgrove District Plan and Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4 ‘Sustainability Appraisals’ consultation.

Submitted by AECOM (formally URS) on behalf of Bentley Area Action Group (BAAG)

Mark Fessey Principal Consultant

Steve Smith Technical Director

Limitations

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) has prepared this Report for the use of the Bentley Area Action Group in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by AECOM has not been independently verified by AECOM, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken in 2014 - 15 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.

AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to AECOM’s attention after the date of the Report.

Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. AECOM specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Copyright

© This Report is the copyright of AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited.

AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Limited

6-8 Greencoat Place

London, SW1P 1PL



ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2

3. RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE 2014 STATEMENT ......................... 4

4. HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS BEEN ACTIONED? ...................................... 5

ANNEX 1 – BAAG MEMBERS ...................................................................................... 12



iii

For the avoidance of doubt, potential locations for cross-boundary development are referred to in this report according to the numbers assigned to them in the Housing Growth Development Study, 2013.



1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

AECOM (formally URS) is instructed by the Bentley Area Action Group (BAAG) to prepare and submit a response to the ‘Sustainability Appraisals Consultation’ (24

rd

March to 5th May 2015), which is being held as part of the Examination of the

Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) and Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4 (BORLP4).

BAAG comprises residents with a particular interest in the Bentley and Foxlydiate area, to the west of Redditch. BAAG is concerned by the proposal to meet Redditch’s housing need through development of a major urban extension into the Green Belt at Foxlydiate. As understood from the submitted plans, the scheme would be implemented through Policy RCBD1.1 of the BDP, and supported by BORLP4 policy.

BAAG has engaged proactively through-out the plan-making process. Notably:

In May 2013 BAAG responded in detail to the ‘Housing Growth Development Study’ consultation (Examination documents XB1/4a-c); and

In December 2014 BAAG submitted a Hearing Statement ahead of the Cross-Boundary Allocations Hearing Session (Examination document XB1/8), which was timetabled for January 2015 but subsequently postponed.

The 2014 Hearing Statement concluded that the Council is unable to demonstrate exceptional circumstances (the test applied to development proposals in the Green Belt, in-line with national policy) having undertaken a deficient plan-making process, characterised by: A) Insufficient opportunity for meaningful and informed consultation on the proposed approach and alternatives; and B) Flawed technical analysis.

BAAG is satisfied that the 2014 Hearing Statement was given due consideration by the Planning Inspector and the Council in December 2014 / January 2015, and expects that this contributed to the decision to postpone the Examination and undertake further SA work. BAAG notes that the Council’s letter of 23 March 2015 identifies the Hearing Statement as being a main trigger for further work.

However, BAAG has in the past been unsatisfied with the response, provided by Council Officers, to BAAG consultation responses. For this reason, and given limited time and resources, BAAG wishes to make a relatively brief representation at the current time and reserve the right to make further detailed points within a Hearing Statement prepared subsequent to the Inspector establishing his Issues and Matters.

1.2 This consultation response

This consultation response seeks to:

Recap on findings and recommendations from the 2014 Hearing Statement, in relation to ‘plan-making process and consultation’; and then

Consider the extent to which they remain current given sight of the recently published ‘BORLP4 Revised SA’ and the ‘Updated BDP SA’.



2

2. BACKGROUND

There is a need to engage effectively with stakeholders when preparing a Local Plan, and Regulations provide for this primarily by requiring consultation on a draft (‘proposed submission’) plan alongside an SA Report that presents certain specified information, including information on ‘reasonable alternatives’.

The SA Reports published alongside the proposed submission versions of the BORLP4 and BDP in September 2013 did not present the required information, which will have impacted significantly on opportunities for effective consultation. This matter was explored in detail within BAAG’s 2014 Hearing Statement (see Chapter 2), and conclusions are repeated below - see Box 1.

It is also noted that Redditch Borough Council acknowledges that the BPRLP4 was submitted despite no confidence in the SA work that had been undertaken, with the Head of Planning stating (within an email to the Programme Officer, 17 Dec 2015), that:

“As you are aware, we asked the Inspector to postpone the last December Hearing Session in order that officers could take time to properly understand the Redditch Sustainability Appraisal in the absence of a key staff member.” [Emphasis added]

Box 1: Conclusions reached - within the 2014 Hearing Statement - on the SA Reports published alongside the Proposed Submission versions of the two plans

Neither document explained the SA scope.

With regards to alternatives, the BORLP4 SA Report presented hardly any information on alternative approaches that might be taken to expansion of Redditch.

1 ‘Statements’ were

parachuted into the report on pages 63 and 65, signposting readers to the earlier consideration of alternatives. The BDP SA Report presented no information regarding alternatives, at all. Both SA Reports included cursory statements dismissing the issue of Redditch’s expansion as being foreclosed, i.e. actively discouraged engagement.

The appraisal of the draft plan was presented in two entirely different ways within the two reports (over 19 pages in the BORLP4 SA Report; and over c.300 pages in the BDP SA Report). Both reports made confusing statements regarding recommendations / mitigation measures, which will have left the reader wondering whether the appraisal of the draft plan was up-to-date.

Both SA Reports failed to summarise key effects likely to result from plan implementation and relate these to possible monitoring measures.

The BDP SA Report was not published (or submitted) alongside a Non-technical Summary, whilst the Non-technical Summary of the BORLP4 SA Report was entirely deficient (as it stated nothing about the effects of the draft plan / alternatives).

More generally -

The reports were not structured logically, and were structured very differently.2

The reports were assigned differing titles, and the BDP report was updated for submission with no explanation of why this was necessary.

3

The reports were poorly written, with unhelpful introductory / explanatory text.

1 Elsewhere, within the December 2014 Hearing Statement, BAAG highlighted that: “The BORLP4 SA Report presented

‘scattergun’ and ultimately misdirected information on alternatives (over 146 pages in Appendix A) and also some cursory, vague statements (in the ‘Redditch Cross Boundary Development’ section of Appendix A, and in Appendix B)”. 2 Both reports included a table at the start signposting readers to locations within the report where important information could

be found; however, the tables were erroneous. For example, Row F of the Table in the BORLP4 SA Report failed to signpost readers to the appraisal of the draft plan in Appendix B. 3 It would appear that updating the BDP SA Report for submission involved changing the reference to how recommendations

made within the report had been actioned. The September 2013 report stated that recommendations had been actioned prior to publication, whilst the March 2014 report stated that recommendations had been actioned prior to submission. Given that the recommendations were the same in both reports, this will have compounded confusion.



3

Whilst the SEA Regulations envisage a process whereby the plan is simply finalised subsequent to the draft plan consultation, the Local Planning Regulations make provision for additional stages of plan-making. Specifically, the Council and Inspector may propose Modifications (to the plan as previously published/submitted) for consultation, and then for the Inspector may conclude on the need for Modifications.

As such, there is the potential to ‘repair’ the SA process post submission, i.e. to present additional information so that the ultimate outcome is a situation whereby consultees have been offered ‘early, timely and effective’ opportunities for consultation on the draft plan and alternatives, in-line with SEA and Aarhus Convention requirements.

The possibility of repairing the SA process in this way was clarified by the ‘Cogent’ judgement of 2012,

4 although it may be fair to say that the Courts are yet to explore the

extent to which it is possible to repair deficient SA processes post submission (given

limited potential to proactively consider alternatives post submission).5

With a view to repairing deficiencies in the SA process, on 6th November 2014 Redditch

Borough Council submitted a ‘Sustainability Appraisal Refresh’ document. The document was a supplemented version of the September 2013 SA Report, with a letter to the Inspector identifying seven ways in which the document had been supplemented.

BAAG’s 2014 Hearing Statement discussed each of the seven points in turn (see Table 1 of that report), drawing conclusions such as:

Numerous statements on the merits of the preferred approach to cross-boundary development were ‘tweaked’, so that they referred to alternatives as well as the preferred approach. However, the statements remained entirely unhelpful. They failed to reference specific alternatives, comprised little substance and were characterised by inconsistency and inaccuracy. The effect of the statements will likely have been to further stifle proactive debate.

Each statement was critiqued within Annex 2 of the 2014 Hearing Statement.

Appendix C was added, which comprised an appraisal of all site options in isolation. Site options do not equate to ‘alternatives’ in this context.

The Council suggest that the effect of the Refresh was to make it so that: “The document is now explicit in its reasoning to explain why some sites are selected and some are not.” This statement was strongly refuted.

The Refresh document failed to enable readers (even specialist readers) to understand the merits of alternative approaches that might be taken to the expansion of Redditch, and why the Council feels that the preferred approach is justified in-light of alternatives.

4 Cogent Land LLP Vs. Rochford District Council [2012]

5 Note, for example, Ashdown Forest Economic Development Llp v SS Communities & Local Government [2014] where Mr

Justice Sales finds that: “The procedures involved in independent examination of a plan by an inspector, including by examination in public, appear to me to be a consultation process which is capable of fulfilling the consultation requirement under Article 6 of the Directive... I emphasise again, however, that I have not heard argument on this issue so this view must be regarded as provisional.” [Emphasis added]



4

3. RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE 2014 HEARING STATEMENT

A section was dedicated to answering the question: “What information should have been presented in the SA Reports?” Box 2 repeats text from that section.

Box 2: Recommendation made - within the 2014 Hearing Statement - regarding the information that should ‘reasonably’ be presented on alternatives

Most importantly, the SA Reports should explain the ‘story’ of alternatives consideration/appraisal for the key plan issue of ‘Expansion of Redditch’. Specifically, the SA Reports should present the following information –

1. Explain (in ‘outline reasons’ terms) why expansion of Redditch is a key plan issue that ‘reasonably’ needs to be the focus of alternatives appraisal. As part of this discussion, explain why the option of meeting housing need through growth elsewhere, or through densification of Redditch, is considered an unreasonable option, and signpost to past work.

6

BAAG does not accept that there is no reasonable need to present an appraisal of alternatives for the expansion of Redditch. Several legal judgements and numerous Inspectors Reports highlight that the broad spatial approach to urban expansion is invariably a key issue, and hence information on alternatives must be in the SA Report.

2. Introduce (in ‘outline reasons’ terms) the reasonable alternatives. As part of this discussion, explain why some options for the expansion of Redditch can be dismissed as unreasonable on the basis of past work (e.g. the Housing Growth Development Study of March 2013) and signpost clearly to that past work.

7

The four ‘scenarios’ considered in Chapter 8 of the HGDS, or a refinement of these, should be presented as the reasonable alternatives.

The ‘reasonableness’ of the scenarios might be explained as follows: A) 20 areas were appraised, before it was established that there is a need to expand Redditch to the north or west (areas 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11); B) The five areas to the north and west of Redditch were subjected to detailed appraisal, and from this analysis four scenarios emerged; C) The four scenarios were consulted-on in March 2013, and were subsequently revisited / refined.

8

3. Present the appraisal of reasonable alternatives, i.e. alternative scenarios for expansion.

4. Explain (in ‘outline reasons’ terms) why the preferred approach was selected / developed in-light of the alternatives appraisal. The aim is to present an open and honest explanation of why the preferred approach reflects sustainable development on balance, relative to alternatives.

Essentially, the recommendation being made was that the Council should undertake work to identify and explain (including through illustrative maps) a discrete range of alternative approaches to the expansion of Redditch (the key issue being addressed through the plan) and then present an appraisal of those alternatives / explain the justification for the preferred approach.

6 BAAG’s representation of May 2013 - made in response to the ‘Housing Growth Development Study’ – raised a host of

questions with regards to the capacity of the Redditch Urban Area to accept additional growth, and these questions remain unanswered. At the current time, the Council may feel that the option of higher growth within the urban area is ‘unreasonable’, but that does not mean that it should be ignored within the SA Report. Rather, the SA Report should explain briefly (i.e. in ‘outline reasons’ terms) why it is an unreasonable option. Legal judgements (most notably Heard vs. Broadland District Council, 2012) are clear that key issues such as this cannot be entirely ignored within the SA Report. 7 In other words, the Council should explain how understanding of reasonable alternatives has been ‘refined’ over time, in line

with Stage B of the SA process advocated by the NPPG – ‘Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects’ 8 BAAG’s representation of May 2013 - made in response to the ‘Housing Growth Development Study’ – raised a host of

questions with regards to the appraisal of broad areas / the selection of alternative scenarios for the expansion of Redditch, and these questions remain unanswered at the current time. The Council should respond to these questions in the SA Report, when explaining (in ‘outline reasons’ terms) why the alternative scenarios for the expansion of Redditch are the ‘reasonable alternatives’.



5

Furthermore, the ‘Next steps’ section of the 2014 Hearing Statement sought to reiterate the importance of taking a carefully considered approach, stating that:

“In order to ensure that the necessary information can be presented within the SA Report, it will be particularly important that the Councils give careful consideration to the question of: What are the reasonable alternatives?

When establishing reasonable alternatives, there should be consideration given to merits of options that would involve dispersing growth, as well as options that would involve major urban extensions of 2,000+ homes. Within the HGDS, smaller areas within Areas 5, 8 and 11 are identified but then dismissed because they are not of “sufficient capacity to provide the required level of housing to meet Redditch’s needs.” It is not clear why a smaller area could not contribute.

Similarly, the option of ‘reduced capacity’ growth at Area 4 (established and mapped on page 218 of the HGDS, having not been discussed within any of the previous sections) should be revisited given that it would contribute to “the most logical and natural expansion to Redditch in terms of urban form” (HGDS, para 8.12).

It may well transpire that plan-making boils down to the need to trade-off between a relatively small number of competing objectives – e.g. heritage objectives associated with Hewell Grange on the one hand, and objectives to urban form / sustainable movement / regeneration on the other hand – and if this is the case then this should be communicated clearly within the SA Report with a view to enabling engagement.”

The next steps section also sought to draw attention to recent PINS quotes and a highly relevant High Court Case (see Box 3).

Box 3: PINS quotes and a High Court Judgement, discussed within the 2014 Hearing Statement

A highly relevant recent quote comes from the Examination of the Richmondshire Local Plan:

“The evaluation of reasonable alternative options is a fundamental part of plan making. It is necessary for soundness, and a Plan can only be justified when it has been formulated on such a basis. On the whole it is the sustainability appraisal process which performs this function.”

With regards to High Court Judgements, Ashdown Forest Economic Development Llp v SS Communities & Local Government [2014] is highly relevant. Lord Justice Sales found against the claimant - an objector to the Council’s Adopted Plan - on the basis that (amongst other things):

“In giving “outline reasons” it was entitled to focus, as it did, on the main reasons why particular alternatives (in particular, Scenarios A and B) were not considered to be viable or attractive having regard to the full planning context– and hence were not “reasonable alternatives” - without descending into great detail to set out each and every aspect of the case or of impediments to adoption of such alternatives.”

“As to the substance of the work to be done by a local planning authority in identifying reasonable alternatives for environmental assessment, the necessary choices to be made are deeply enmeshed with issues of planning judgment, use of limited resources and the maintenance of a balance between the objective of putting a plan in place with reasonable speed… and the objective of gathering relevant evidence and giving careful and informed consideration to the issues to be determined. The effect of this is that the planning authority has a substantial area of discretion as to the extent of the inquiries which need to be carried out to identify the reasonable alternatives which should then be examined in greater detail…”

“The objectives of the SEA Directive to contribute to more transparent decision-making and to allow contributions to the development of a strategic plan by the public have been fulfilled in the circumstances of this case.”

The effect of the High Court Judgement is clearly to highlight that requirements around ‘reasonable alternatives’ need not be onerous, but equally are worthy of consideration through the courts. The reference to alternative ‘scenarios’ is also notable.



6

4. HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS BEEN ACTIONED?

The 2015 ‘BORLP4 Revised SA’ includes a lengthy Non-technical Summary (NTS), and so it is helpful to begin with an examination of the information provided here regarding alternative spatial strategies for the expansion of Redditch.

Subsequently, this section considers what more can be learned from the main body of the ‘BORLP4 Revised SA’, and then gives brief consideration is given to the updated ‘BDP SA’. Finally, conclusions are drawn on the questions:

Have recommendations been actioned?

Is the effect of publishing the new SA documents such that there can now be said to have been an early and effective opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the merits of the draft plan and reasonable alternatives?

4.1 The BORLP4 ‘Revised SA’ - Non-technical Summary

Paragraph 3 of the NTS states that a purpose of the report is to ensure that “all alternatives have been explicitly tested against other alternatives in the context of the proposed Submission Local Plan No.4 (see Appendix D) in response to concerns expressed by the Inspector.” This is an unclear statement.

The NTS then presents a section entitled ‘Reasonable alternatives considered’, which firstly lists five very high level spatial strategy alternatives that were considered in 2007, before then listing the same alternatives again to reflect the fact that they were again considered in 2008. This does not equate to presenting information on ‘reasonable alternatives’ as they are understood at the current time.

9

The next heading within the NTS considers ‘Cross-boundary Working’. This section lists the five very high level spatial strategy alternatives again before also identifying

two additional options, which do not entirely relate to the preceding five options.

The discussion then goes on to consider the site options and alternative scenarios considered as part of the Housing Growth Study work in 2013. Appraisal of alternative housing growth scenarios is something that must be a focus of the SA Report, i.e. alternative housing growth scenarios should be presented as ‘the reasonable alternatives’. It is not clear, however, that they presented as such within the NTS.

The next heading deals with ‘Site Development Configurations for the Proposed Spatial Strategy’. The only point to note here is that there is no explanation of reasons for focusing alternatives appraisal efforts on these four growth locations only.

Other points to make regarding the NTS are as follows -

The text presented within the ‘Likely effects’ columns of the table dealing with ‘Likely Sustainability Effects of the BORLP4 and their Mitigation’ arguably does not present an actual appraisal of the draft plan. There is no discussion of significance (of effects, on the baseline), nor are there references to the ‘Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects’ as listed in Schedule 1 of the SEA Regulations.

Within this text there are statements made that aim to demonstrate that the preferred approach to cross boundary development is preferable to the alternatives, however these statements are weak and alternatives are not named or described in any way (see discussion above, within Section 2).

9 Whilst it can be helpful to explain the ‘story’ of alternatives consideration over time (with a view to explaining ‘outline reasons

for selecting the alternatives dealt with / justifying the reasonable alternatives as understood at the current time), the information presented does not serve this purpose. It is unhelpful and certainly has no place in an NTS.



7

The ‘Proposed Mitigation’ column is confusing. It is not at all clear that mitigation measures are proposed. For example, within row 6 -

The ‘Likely effects’ are: “Neither the locations for cross boundary development nor the Redditch Cross Boundary Development Policy affect this objective, however the allocation of the Redditch Eastern Gateway site helps to ensure it is delivered.”

The ‘Proposed Mitigation’ is: “The Local Plan includes encouragement for the use of BREEAM standards and other nationally supported requirements such as CSH through the Climate Change Policy.”

The aim of paras 28 and 29 appears to be to conclude on the effects of the draft plan; however, the only substantive conclusion reached is that the effects of the plan are ‘positive’.

It is inappropriate to conclude on the ‘overall sustainability’ of a draft plan in this way, given that all plans invariably lead to positive and negative implications (‘trade-offs’) in terms of the SA framework.

The discussion under the heading of ‘Consultation’ states that: “A very small number of representations were received on the SA at each stage which included observations on the scores given and the scope of the SA (in relation to Habitats Regulations Assessment).”

BAAG’s 2014 Hearing Statement dealt with the ‘SA Refresh’ and did not focus on ‘scoring’, nor did it discuss HRA.

It is stated that: “This Revised Sustainability Report is published for consultation commencing 24th March 2015 for a period of six weeks ending on 5th May 2015, along with an updated SA of the Bromsgrove Plan.” There is no mention of the potential to comment on the plan itself.

The aim of publishing an SA Report is to inform consultation on the Draft Plan. This matter is discussed further below.

There is a section dealing with ‘Compliance with the SEA Directive’ which has no place in a Non-technical Summary, particularly given that nowhere is the acronym ‘SEA’ explained.

The section on ‘Monitoring’ does not discuss monitoring measures that are necessary, in light of appraisal findings.

The section on ‘Post Adoption Statement’ is unnecessary (in an NTS).

A key point to note is that the NTS does not present appraisal findings (summary or otherwise) in relation to reasonable alternatives; nor does it sign-post to a location in the main body of the report where information on reasonable alternatives can be found.

4.2 The BORLP4 ‘Revised SA’ - Main body of the report

Working our way through the report, additional points (i.e. points that are additional or supplementary to those made above in relation to the NTS) are as follows -

Section 1.2 - ‘Purpose of the Report and Background to the Appraisal’ - fails to explain that the purpose of the SA Report is to inform consultation on the draft plan and alternatives.

Section 1.5 presents a table that “sets out where requirements of the SEA Directive have been addressed in the Sustainability Report”; however, there are several instances of the reader being signposted to the ‘Scoping Reports’.



8

Section 3.4 - ‘Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives’ - differs from the NTS only in the addition of Table 3.1. This addition does not enable the conclusion to be reached that the report presents an appraisal of reasonable alternatives.

Within Section 3.4 there is also the addition of a brief ‘Conclusions’ section, which serves little purpose. It does not present information on alternatives, nor explain why the draft plan is justified in-light of reasonable alternatives.

Section 4.2 - ‘Compatibility of Sustainability Objectives and Plan Objectives’ - includes a large, colourful appraisal matrix. Points to note are -

It is unclear why ‘MM’ (meaning ‘Mitigation measures applied’) is inserted in some boxes.

It is inappropriate to add up scores in order to come to a conclusion on the ‘overall sustainability’ of each objective, and then to conclude that: “The SA Objectives and Local Plan Objectives matrix shows that there are no predicted negative cumulative effects of any of the Local Plan objectives on sustainability.” The point of SA is to identify where there is a need to trade-off between competing objectives. The requirement to consider ‘cumulative effects’ is a requirement to consider the effects of a draft plan in combination with other plans etc.

The ‘potential mitigation’ column does not identify potential mitigation.

Section 4.5 - ‘Site Delivery Options’ - presents an appraisal of alternatives in relation to four proposed growth locations. Section 4.6 then presents information on the proposed approach to cross-boundary development, but does not discuss alternatives. There is no explanation of the reasons for taking this approach.

Section 4.7 - ‘Overall Effects of the BORLP4 and Proposals for Mitigation’ - comprises a table (Table 4.6) that purports to show: “the key positive and negative effects associated with implementation of BORLP4”. However, it is not clear that any negative effects are identified, given that the ‘Likely effects’ text in the table is identical to that presented in Table 4.3 (which shows nothing but positive effects).

Also in relation to Table 4.6, it is stated that: “Mitigation measures are also included where potential negative or positive effects have been identified from the analysis of the Options against SA Objectives and Local Plan Objectives (Stages B2, B3 and B4). There are appropriate mitigation measures proposed to ensure that compatibility between objectives, or achievement of a specific outcome is maximised.” It is not clear that the effect of the table is to propose mitigation.

Section 4.8 - ‘Proposals for monitoring’ - fails to discuss issues / predicted effects that should be a focus of monitoring efforts.

Within the appendices, points to note include the following:

Appendix B purports to present an appraisal of the Local Plan; however, there is no discussion of significant effects on the baseline, and it is noted that ‘Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects’ from Schedule 1 of the SEA Regs (e.g. short/long-term) are not referenced.

It is unclear how Appendix C (‘Appraisal of Local Plan Policies’) relates to Appendix B.



9

Appendix D presents the appraisal of site options in isolation. It concludes by stating that: “Sites 3, 4, 6, 10, 18 and Land to the Rear of the Alexandra Hospital and Woodrow… have significantly high scores in the SA above and are therefore contributing positively to sustainability and are recommended for development and detailed investigation for its potential for development.” It is inappropriate to come to overall conclusions on ‘sustainability’ on the basis of appraisal against the SA framework. It is in fact the case that the appraisal highlights that some of these site options are notably constrained, so that development would lead to significant negative effects in terms of some sustainability issues / objectives.

4.3 The Updated BDP SA

Given time and resources, it has only been possible to review this document briefly. Points to note are as follows -

The structure of the document remains very different to the structure of the Redditch document.

At 33 pages, the NTS (which is new) is neither non-technical nor a summary.

As with the BORLP4, the NTS does not present a summary appraisal of alternative approaches to the expansion of Redditch, nor does it sign-post to a location in the main body of the report where this information can be found. With regards to alternatives, a lot of the information discussed seems to relate to alternatives consideration that has occurred in the past that is now of questionable relevance (i.e. of questionable interest to stakeholders).

Table 1.3 purports to show: “the relationship between the sustainability objectives, their likely effects and how these have been addressed as mitigation factors in the BDP.” This is unclear.

As with the BORLP4 SA Report, there is no discussion of mitigation measures that have been incorporated as part of SA work, or mitigation measures that remain outstanding (for discussion at Examination) at the current time. Schedule 2(7) of the SEA Regulations requires that this information is included within the SA Report published for consultation alongside the draft plan.

Monitoring measures are not proposed (in-light of appraisal findings).

Parts of the document are not up-to-date, e.g. para 1.22, which discusses how the document was updated at various points up to 2013, but fails to discuss the updating work undertaken in 2015.

The discussion of ‘What happens next?’ makes no mention of the potential for changes to be made to the plan.

Few, if any, drawbacks to the plan are flagged in Table 3.1: “Summary Sustainability effects of the BDP”

Chapter 3 is unstructured and difficult to read / understand.

At 904 pages, the report is far too long. In-line with SEA Regulations, SA Reports should be accessible to ‘the public’.



10

4.4 In summary

Recommendations made within BAAG’s 2014 Hearing Statement in relation to the information that should be presented on ‘reasonable alternatives’ have not been heeded. It remains impossible for a reader (even a specialist) to understand how the preferred strategy for the expansion of Redditch performs relative to the alternatives, or to understand the Council’s reasons for selecting the preferred strategy in-light of the alternatives.

Numerous other specific recommendations made within the 2014 Hearing Statement have not been heeded. The reports are deficient in respects that do not relate to ‘reasonable alternatives’; and it is also the case that the reports are inaccessible and poorly presented. For example, headings are presented with little or no logic and (in the BORLP4 report, in particular) often appear at the bottom of pages (with text then starting on the subsequent page).

It is certainly not the case that the effect of publishing the revised/updated documents is to repair deficiencies in the past SA process, so that it is now the case that stakeholders have been provided with an early and effective (i.e. informed) opportunity to comment on the draft plan (and specifically the plan for Redditch’s expansion) and reasonable alternatives. This is despite:

The letter published alongside the new SA documents stating that: “The principal changes relate to the inclusion new material detailing how the SA and BORLP4 have evolved in respect of the consideration of reasonable alternatives.”

The Council setting out to undertake further SA work in the knowledge that there was a need to focus on the consideration of alternative growth strategies, with the Council’s Head of Planning stating (within emails to the Programme Officer):

On 18 Dec 2014 - “Following initial discussion, the advice we have received is suggesting that a two-stage re-write of the SA is required, to comprise: - Appraisal of alternative strategies to deliver housing need, draft policies and proposed strategic sites [and] - Final SA report.”

On 9 Jan 2015 - “[We shall] Publish [a] Sustainability Report for consultation which sets out how alternatives for accommodating growth have been developed, appraised and the key results thereof.”

Another key point relates to the way in which the purpose of the report / the consultation is introduced. The average reader will not have understood that the point of the consultation was to seek views on the submitted plan and alternatives. On this point, it is important to query the way in which the process was advertised:

Prepare revised Sustainability Appraisal Report: w/c 12th January

Consultation (6 weeks): w/c 23rd March

Review consultation responses and finalise SA Report: w/c 4th May

Submit final SA Report to examination: 18th May

Deadline for Hearing Statements: 8th June

Reconvene Examination: w/c 22nd June

Stakeholders will not have been motivated to engage given an understanding that their efforts could only serve to influence ‘Finalisation of the SA Report’.



11

This is a matter that AECOM (then URS) sought to advise on through email discussions with the Council and the Inspector. In an email of 21 Jan 2015 we stated that:

“The Councils’ proposed approach reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the SEA/SA process. The process essentially involves:

1) Appraisal of alternatives to inform development of a draft plan;

There is no mention of this step in the proposed approach.

2) Consultation on the draft plan and alternatives, informed by the SA Report;

The Council suggest a consultation on the SA Report, a step that has no place in the envisaged/required process.

3) Plan finalisation in-light of consultation responses and the SA Report.

There is no mention of this step in the proposed approach.

As things stand, there can be no confidence in the plan-making / SA process going forward. Given that there is an acknowledged lack of confidence in the plan-making / SA process that has led up to this point, then this points to fundamental problems.”

On this same subject, it is finally worth pointing out that the letter published alongside the two SA documents stated that:

“In accordance with Regulation 13 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, the two documents are each now the subject of a further six-week statutory consultation. The six week public consultation period on both SA Reports will run from Tuesday 24 March 2015 until Tuesday 5 May 2015… If you wish to make a representation on either of the SA documents you can email your comments to… There is no need to send comments to both addresses, as officers

will work jointly to analyse any comments and finalise the SA documents.”

In actual fact, Regulation 13 states that:

“Every draft plan or programme for which an environmental report has been prepared in accordance with regulation 12 and its accompanying environmental report (“the relevant documents”) shall be made available for the purposes of consultation in accordance with the following provisions of this regulation.” [Emphasis added]



12

ANNEX 1 – BAAG MEMBERS

Adams Paul

Allen Brian

Allen Judith

Arnott Brian

Atkins Linda

Bateman Jill

Bateman Simon

Bayliss Andy

Beard Keith

Bloomfield Belinda

Bloomfield Steve

Boss Suzi

Boss Andy

Boss Roger

Brazier Chrissie

Brazier June

Brazier Mike

Brewsher Graham

Brewsher Roz

Brock Lisa

Brunt Guy

Carless Sarah

Carless Simon

Caswell Dee

Cotterell David

Davies Karen

Davies Tony

Davies Edward

Davies Wendy

Davis Rod

Deakin James

Dolling Ben

Dolling Claire

Dugan Ian

Dugan David

Dugan Louise

Dugan June

Dunstall John

Dykes Peter

Dykes Mary

Dyson Anne

Dyson Barrie



13

Emms Helen

Emms Tim

Every Liz

Ferns Sam

Fish Anne

Fish Jeremy

Fokes Clive

Frost Paul

Gateley Pam

Glainger Malcolm

Glainger Sandy

Godwin Julie

Hagger Gee

Hagger Pete

Hampshire Barbara

Hampshire Grenville

Hancock Lyn

Harper Jean

Harper Phil

Harris Ben

Harris Kate

Harris John

Harrop John

Harrop Sue

Hartland Jo

Hill Camilla

Hill Tim

Hussey Francesca

Jameson Pam

Jeffrey Shona

Jeffery Steve

Jenkins Dr Stephen

Keane John

Keating John

Keevil Jim

Killen Martin

Killen Melanie

Lauder Suzi

Lawson Don

Lemon Clive

Long Sharon

Manley John

Martin Dawn

Martin Richard



14

Matthews John

McIntosh June

McIntosh Mike

Meads Paul

Meede Ellie

Moffett Emma

Morgan Chris

Morgan Matthew

Moses Peter

Myatt Peter

Myatt Gina

Nicholls Pam

O'Leary James

O'Rouke Kevin

O'Rourke Lisa

Overton Alison

Overton Dennis

Perry Charles

Perry Krystyna

Perry Gordon

Pettit Nigel

Rands Nick

Reading Lynnelight

Reading Nick

Robson Kate

Rose Andy

Rose David

Sansom Michael

Sansom Francis

Scott Elizabeth

Scott John

Seller Katie

Shaw Sue

Simms Sue

Sinclair Ben

Spence Helen

Spofforth Emma

Stafford Michael

Stafford Michelle

Stevens Elizabeth

Stevens Jan

Stevens Roy

Stiley Chloe

Stiley Olly



15

Stiley Sally Ann

Stiley Matthew

Stratton Luke

Stuart-Manley Anne

Stubbs David

Stubbs David

Teague Gail

Titterton Jennie

Titterton Simon

Tonks Debbie

Tonks Laura

Tonks Martyn

Underhill Ben

Underhill George

Underhill Karen

Underhill Jo

Underhill John

Walshe Holly

Walshe Mike

Walshe Sandra

Walshe Tom

Whitaker Jim

Whitehouse Jonathan

Winslow Janet

Documents

Emma Newfield - Redditch · Whilst having to respond to an unstructured ‘Narrative’ is atypical (the typical situation being one whereby consultees are asked to comment on a draft