WCED015A

WREXHAM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC - COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE INSPECTORS’ POST- HEARING LETTER & NOTE DATED 13th DECEMBER 2019 (INSP019 & INSP019a)

INTRODUCTION This statement sets out the Council’s response to the Inspectors’ post-hearing letters (INSP0191) and note (INSP019a2) in which they expressed concern about the soundness of two aspects of the Plan – housing requirement and delivery and Gypsy and Traveller accommodation – and required the Council to answer specific queries and submit further information/evidence.

The approach that the Council has taken in compiling this report has been: a) to refer the Inspectors to evidence that the Council has already submitted, such as the background papers, hearing statements and responses to post-hearing action points b) to provide further information/evidence, as required, principally drawing from the Council’s housing and Gypsy and Traveller sites databases that underpinned the decisions to allocate (or not to allocate) particular sites, but which were only summarised in the previously submitted background documents c) to infer, from the Inspectors’ letters/note what changes to the Plan or further work might be necessary in the event that the Inspectors are not convinced by a) and b), above, that the Plan is sound and to do as much of that work as possible in the time that has been available to explore the issues and identify the implications. Some changes have already been the subject of public consultation and political endorsement and were reported to the hearings in 2019 as Matter Arising Changes (MAC), but others are new and would require consultation, etc as MAC, if proposed by the Inspectors.

The Council has followed this approach because it believes that there is already sufficient evidence to support the adoption of the Plan contained in the previously submitted documents and the newly published databases that underpinned them and to obviate the need for an unfruitful suspension of the Examination in Public. Delaying the adoption of the Plan any further will compound the harm already caused by speculative development in some areas and a lack of investment in others and the effect on strategic planning of ‘Planning by appeal’. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the Council has received notification from the Inspectorate that the Inspectors will be submitting their final report in May 2020.

The Council would welcome the guidance and/or direction of the Inspectors to ensure that the Plan can be taken forward to adoption; particularly if the Council has not interpreted correctly what they are looking for in their letter and note.

The format of the rest of this report corresponds with the subject headings, bullet points and questions/requests for information set out in the Inspectors’ note.

2. HOUSING REQUIREMENT

For clarification, Policy SP1 of the Deposit Local Development Plan (‘the Plan’) makes provision for 8525 new homes in order to deliver a housing requirement of 7750 over the Plan period.

1 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5570524 2 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5570528 1

On a procedural point, the Preferred Strategy (PS) does not form part of the submitted documentation required under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) () Regulations, 2005, as amended3. At the pre-Inquiry meeting held on 25 June 2019, the Council confirmed that the Plan which is to be examined is the Deposit version as amended by the Proposed Focussed Changes.

On the substantive point, the Plan’s housing requirement is sufficiently aspirational, but also deliverable and is founded on robust and credible evidence. The decision to reduce housing provision between PS (11,715) and Deposit (8,525) stages of the Plan is set out in BP01b4, M2.015 & INSP017R6 and is fully justified, for the following reasons: • having regard to the significant change in evidence presented by the release of the 2014-base population and household projections compared to the 2011-base projections • the continued importance of the deliverability of allocations in LDPs, as set out in national policy • an assessment of past completion rates and feedback from consultation

The next official round of Welsh Government (WG) projections will use 2018 as a base year. They are due to be published at the end of February with the household projections in the spring. Projected growth levels are expected to be significantly lower than set out in the Plan. Using the 2014-base is sufficiently aspirational to support the economic ambition in the Plan, but also appropriate given fluctuations in the projections.

In summary, the policy and evidence-base justification for the housing requirement is that: • it is based on the most up to date evidence, in accordance with PPW10 • it remains aspirational in support of economic growth, as advocated in the Plan Strategy and by regional evidence • it allows for job growth proportionate to the sector growth analysis undertaken in the econometric forecasting model (BP077) • it is realistic as the development industry can deliver the 517 dwellings required per year (694 in the remainder of the Plan period, given completions since 2013) • it enables the Council to allocate the most sustainable and deliverable sites • it still provides a sufficient critical mass of population to support investment in infrastructure • it will enable the Council to demonstrate a 5-year supply on adoption of the Plan, given the residual methodology calculation

If the PS figures were used it would require an extra 3190 dwellings (including a 10% flexibility allowance, although the Inspectors’ query about the logic of this particular percentage is discussed later in this report). This would reverse the bullet points, above, and result in a significant misalignment between aspiration and delivery, while the level of growth proposed would have severe adverse consequences for the Plan, for sustainable development and for the people of the County Borough.

In terms of deliverability, it is difficult to see how the development industry can build significantly higher numbers of housing than prior to the recession. Once completions are deducted, the average annual rate of completions over the Plan period would need to be

3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2005/2839/contents/made and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2015/1598/made 4 Background Paper BP01b para 2.20. http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113347 5 M2.01 WCBC Plan Strategy https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5468398 6 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5525608 7 Background Paper BP07 Employment Land http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113359

2

1,016 to deliver the PS housing requirement, 46% more than the 694 needed to deliver the Deposit Plan requirement. The former has not been achieved at any point in the past 15 years (both before and during the recession) and only once has come close (this is discussed in greater detail on Pages 14 and 15 of this report).

Increasing the housing requirement would also impact on the provision of infrastructure which is fundamental to the delivery of the Plan. The Infrastructure Plan8 emerged from a process of constructive dialogue on the housing requirement with stakeholders, including organisations responsible for the provision of infrastructure, based on the Plan provision of 8525 new homes. Increasing the requirement would have infrastructure implications to the extent that it would result in a different Plan altogether.

Questions/Further Information i. In arriving at a housing requirement based on the latest projections, has sufficient consideration been given to key evidence in relation to issues such as what the plan is seeking to achieve and links between homes and jobs?

Yes - as set out in BP01, a core part of the population and housing projections work has been to calculate the number of jobs required to meet the projected population increase over the Plan period (the jobs density calculation). From the outset, the Council has carefully considered the relationship between housing, jobs and employment land, following an approach that has been endorsed by the Inspectorate at the Newport LDP Examination in Public9 and Cheshire West & Chester examination of their core strategy10.

As stated in BP0711 and Wrexham Council Statement - Economic Growth and Enterprise (M5.0112) it should not be expected that the housing and job projections will match exactly, they being based on different data inputs, drivers of growth, assumptions about the future and methodologies. As noted in Appendix A2 of BP01b13: When looking at predicting future growth, there are three main factors which can drive projections work: demographic change, change in the number of new dwellings and change in employment provision. The three factors are all interrelated – an increase in employment in the area may lead to in- migration and thus population growth, which requires additional housing provision or lack of sufficient housing provision may cause people to move out of the area, taking their employment skills with them and discouraging employers from developing within the local economy. We try to balance these three elements of growth, but cannot always do so within the statistical exercise of producing projections, as there is always a dominant driver of growth and there is no set methodology for providing this balance. Part of the population and housing projection work has been to calculate the number of jobs (jobs density calculation) required to meet the projected population increase in the County Borough over the Plan period. This is so we can provide evidence that, right from the outset, we have considered the relationship between housing numbers, employment and the level of employment land allocations required.

8 EB0I01 Infrastructure Plan http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113646 9 Newport LDP Inspectors report, paragraph 3.18 – 3.23 http://www.newport.gov.uk/documents/Planning- Documents/LDP-2011-2026/Newport-LDP---Inspectors-Report---515474.pdf 10 64 Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) Inspectors Report, Paragraph 50 and 51 http://consult.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/file/3242497 11 BP07 Employment Land (January 2018) http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113359 12M5.01 Council https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5487114 13 BP01b paragraphs 5.27-5.30 explain why the job requirement calculated form the population and household projections will not exactly match the requirement identified in the Employment Land Review http://wrexham- consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113347

3

The option that the Council has chosen is a reasonable match between the jobs growth identified in the Employment Land Review (ELR) and the jobs growth identified by the population projections which inform the housing numbers in the Plan14 (there is a difference of only 33 jobs per annum or 500 over the Plan period between these two datasets). It avoids discord between the housing and employment elements of the Plan. If there was a significant variation between the jobs figures derived from the two methods there would likely be a mismatch between the amount of housing provided and the ability of the area to accommodate the number of workers anticipated. Such a mismatch might also result in an increase on ‘in’ or ‘out’ commuting, contrary to sustainable development principles15. This is not the case with the Plan.

Paragraph 4.2.6 of PPW10 states in full that ‘The latest Welsh Government local authority level Household Projections for Wales, alongside the latest Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) and the Well-being plan for a plan area, will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans. These should be considered together with other key evidence in relation to issues such as what the plan is seeking to achieve, links between homes and jobs, the need for affordable housing, Welsh language considerations and the deliverability of the plan, in order to identify an appropriate strategy for the delivery of housing in the plan area’ (Council’s emphasis).

Diagram 15 and Table 13 in Draft DPM3 refers to balancing need/demand and supply factors, in the context of achieving a deliverable plan. It clearly states that a balance needs to be achieved (Pages 95 -97).

The crux of the Council’s argument is that increasing housing supply is not possible as the required rates of delivery over the remaining Plan period would be in excess of anything delivered in the past and, so, simply not achievable. The Council has demonstrated that the relationship between housing and jobs has been carefully considered from the outset of the preparation of the Plan and would reiterate that there is no single formula that determines the precise relationship between homes, jobs and employment land. The key sources of evidence in relation to these are the LHMA, the 2014-based population and household projections and the ELR, including the econometric forecasting model undertaken by Cambridge Econometrics.

The jobs growth identified (4200) is based on the evidence in the ELR which looks specifically at sector growth in the County Borough over the Plan period, while the jobs growth figure in the PS (7550) is based on a calculation of housing requirement using a migration-led projection as a starting point. The reduction is not contrived; it is based purely on evidence in the ELR, whereas the figure in the PS is as a result of using a migration projection to calculate the housing requirement with the jobs growth being a result of that number of homes (11,715) rather than being based on direct evidence of jobs growth, as in the option that has been chosen by the Council. If the Council chose a strategy based on a jobs growth figure of 7750, the resulting housing requirement would not be deliverable, contrary to Paragraph 4.2.6 of PPW10.

WG is committed to helping councils minimise the risk of submitting unsound Plans by making appropriate comments at the earliest stages of preparation. It looks for evidence that the tests of soundness in the LDP Manual have been addressed – it is the guardian of national policy and guidance. It has stated specifically that the appropriate projections have been used by the Council, together with the other relevant policy considerations set

14 The ELR (EBE01) derives a land take requirement through converting the projected jobs increase into a land requirement. (Part 9 ELR EBE01) http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5112499 15 M5.01 County Borough Council https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5487114 4 out in paragraphs 4.2.6 - 4.2.8 of PPW10 in arriving at the chosen growth option and housing requirement. Based on its analysis of the evidence at Deposit stage, WG made representations in support of the number of homes and jobs proposed when considered against the diverse range of issues that the Plan is seeking to address, such as the need for affordable housing, increased economic activity and capitalising on the Regional Growth Ambition Board. It placed great emphasis on ensuring that the growth level and housing requirement could be delivered, in accordance with PPW10. ii. Given the caveats listed in the background paper16, does the Deposit housing requirement rely too heavily on the latest projections?

No - Paragraph 4.2.6 of PPW10 states “the latest Welsh Government projections will form a fundamental part of the evidence base for development plans”. In this instance, the 2014-based projections are the latest projections that have properly been taken into account, although when the more up to date information (the 2018-based projections) is published it is expected to show a reduced rate of growth.

The 10 year migration-led variant was selected in preference to the principal projection as it provides a higher level of growth that more closely matches the Council’s aspirations for economic development, and looked at a longer term trend that better fit the (then) 15-year lifespan of the Plan. Though the housing requirement resulting from this 2014-based projection is lower than that presented in the PS consultation, it retains the Council’s economic growth aspirations as it supports the higher end of the economic growth forecasts that came from the ELR. The Council is also confident that this option represents a level of growth that is deliverable over the Plan period.

Over 25 different projections were considered before selecting the growth option presented in the Plan. This demonstrates a thorough investigation of different drivers of, and outcomes from, growth options that might support the Plan. Projections using the most up-to-date population estimates at the time of submission (the 2016 mid-year estimates) were amongst those considered, but as these showed a lower level of growth than the 2014-based projections it was felt that using these as the basis for the Plan would undermine the Council’s growth aspirations. Demographic data have continued to be monitored since the Plan was submitted and initial work looking at what might result from the imminent 2018-based official projections suggests that overall rates of population growth are slowing considerably, and that predictions of future population will be lower than those in the 2014-based projections. The population projections are due to be published at the end of February, with household projections in ‘the spring’.

The reduction in the housing requirement since the PS is therefore fully justified having regard to the significant change in evidence presented by the release of the 2014-based population and household projections compared to the 2011 base. This change in evidence created the need to reassess the assumptions that had been made about overall growth levels at earlier stages of Plan preparation. The resultant selection of growth options is discussed in Section 2, Pages 6-12 of BP01b. Additionally, the continued emphasis on delivery of allocations and associated infrastructure in the Plan in accordance with PPW10 (infrastructure delivery/availability being a key determinant of what can be achieved, not just industry rates), the assessment of past completion data and feedback from the PS consultation were weighed in the Planning balance to reduce the housing requirement.

16 BP01b para 2.3 http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113347

5

Despite the reduction, the annual requirement of 517 dwellings per annum (694, given completions since 2013) is ambitious in support of the Plan’s economic aspirations and compared to past completion rates. WG, in its statement agree with the Council that an increase in the housing requirement would put the Plan at significant risk of not being delivered and impact significantly on the ability of the Council to maintain a 5-year housing land supply (M3.8.0217). The key point, in WG’s view, is delivery; to ensure that the Plan can deliver the proposed levels of growth at the locations proposed.

Based on updated evidence submitted to the Examination in Public and with due regard to the test of soundness, the policy requirements of PPW10 and the emerging LDP Manual, the housing requirement is fit for purpose and should not be increased. Any increase would put the Plan at significant risk of not being delivered, impact significantly on the ability of the Council to maintain a 5-year land supply and harm sustainable development in the County Borough by requiring additional sites in less sustainable locations. iii. Will the reduced housing requirement and number of jobs deliver enough growth to meet the LDP’s strategic objectives? What is the evidence supporting this rationale?

Yes - the housing requirement and number of jobs support the Strategic Objectives by making sufficient provision for housing overall and especially in the Primary Key Settlement of Wrexham town, through the Key Strategic Site allocations, in close proximity to the County’s strategic Employment Area at Wrexham Industrial Estate (WIE), and by maximising the economic potential of Wrexham, and WIE. 80% of housing is located in Tier 1 and 2 settlements, which, as acknowledged by WG, aligns with PPW10 in ensuring that development is directed towards the most sustainable locations near to employment opportunities.

The housing requirement is sufficiently aspirational, but realistic, being founded on robust and credible evidence. The growth level has been sufficiently informed by, and, as already stated, above, is consistent with PPW10, in particular Paragraph 4.2.6.

The Plan Strategy seeks to balance economic aspiration with sustainable delivery of homes, jobs and infrastructure required to meet the needs of a growing population over the Plan period (BP10). The growth level identified (BP01b) is based on an understanding of the projected population growth over the Plan period; the regional context, in terms of Wrexham’s location within North Wales and the wider Mersey-Dee area; past growth and delivery rates (in particular in relation to housing developments) and the need to ensure the management of cultural and natural assets/resources. iv. Would the level of growth be consistent with the draft National Development Framework (NDF)?

The Plan has been prepared in the light of the strategic context set by the Wales Spatial Plan, and, in particular, the consideration of growth and the spatial options has had regard to the focus of growth in the Wrexham/Deeside/Chester area (BP1018). The draft National Development Framework (NDF) covers a different time period (2020 to 2040) and is intended to represent a higher level spatial planning document beneath which will sit Strategic and Local Development Plans. Notwithstanding that the NDF is still draft, the Council considers that the Plan is consistent with its focus of growth in the Deeside and Wrexham area, given its importance to the economies of Wales and the UK. In terms of

17M3.8.02 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5494637 18 Background Paper 10 BP10 Spatial Strategy and Distribution 2017 http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113358 6 the housing requirement, the NDF uses the same 2014-based projections as the Plan (BP01b) – the 10 year migration trend variant – as the basis of predicting housing need.

WG supports the Spatial Strategy and its alignment with the NDF and PPW10 in directing development to the most sustainable locations (M3.08.02 - ‘As stated in our Deposit representations and relevant hearing statements, the Welsh Government is supportive of the spatial strategy….The Welsh Government has not objected to the soundness of the plan on this basis. The Government is also of the view that the plan is in broad alignment with the Wales Spatial Plan and the emerging National Development Framework in that it directs 50% of all housing development to the primary settlement of Wrexham, with 65% of new housing allocations. 80% of housing development is located in Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements collectively, which in the Government’s view, aligns with PPW Edition 10 in ensuring land is directed to the most sustainable locations’).

The approach that the Council has taken also delivers on the ‘placemaking’ requirements and objectives of the Wellbeing and Future Generations Act19 and the Active Travel requirements (by delivering extensions to the existing urban form and links into the walking and cycling networks, seeking to minimise private car trips and aligning with the transport hierarchy), again as expressed in PPW10.

In terms of deliverability – a key aspect of any plan promoted by of PPW10 – the evidence demonstrates that the Plan can deliver the housing requirement proposed, but that any increase would threaten that deliverability. This has been confirmed by written and verbal comments made by WG throughout the hearings.

3. HOUSING SUPPLY & DELIVERY

Questions/Further Information i. Can the Council provide additional evidence on committed sites or delivery in support of these [the following] elements of housing provision?

Windfalls Windfalls account for 18% of the housing provision over the remaining Plan period, as discussed in Paragraph 1.2a of INSP017R20 and as set out in Table 3 of M3.01R21. The matter of settlement boundaries is covered in detail in Section 2 of INSP017R, but the Council would reiterate that they need to be tightly defined to provide certainty and need to follow logical geographical features to be defensible. Evidence to justify the Council’s position in respect of windfall delivery (i.e. discounting 2 years) is shown in Section 4 of M3.01R and Section 2 of INSP017R. Overall, this means that there would be a shortfall of 94 dwellings.

The Council remains of the view that, based on the available evidence, the windfall allowance is realistic and conservative (the delivery rate has already been discounted by 25% compared to past trends. This view is supported by WG which has confirmed that the approach conforms with LDPM322.

19 Position Statement 2 (PPW2) Explanation of the Implications for the Well Being of Future Generations Act 2015 for Wrexham Local Development Plan https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5483787 20 INSP017R https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5525608 21 M3.01R https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5500687 22 https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2019-06/development-plans-manual-edition-3-consultation-draft.pdf 7

Committed Sites The position regarding committed sites remains as set out in Paragraphs 3.7 - 3.9 and Table 1 of M.301R in respect of Hafod Tileries, Llay003NUSC, Westminster Industrial Estate, and Business Park.

Further discussions have taken place with Prospect Estates, the owners of the former Air Products Site, . This site has outline Planning permission (2018), but Reserved Matters have not yet been submitted. Prospect Estates advised on 10 January 2020 that they have received a great deal of interest from local and national developers, including Registered Social Landlords, and offers to purchase the site, either in part or as a whole.

They advise that the existing Planning Obligation, which requires 25% affordable housing and contributions to primary education, is a concern for interested parties. In this respect, the permission was determined with regard to policies in the adopted UDP and associated supplementary planning guidance (SPG23) which requires 25% affordable housing. This SPG was adopted in 2013 prior to the completion of the viability work used to inform the Plan policies. The site is situated within the Mawr and Rhos sub-market area where Policy H2, Affordable Housing, now requires no affordable housing, as informed by the WCBC Viability Study, dated January 201824 produced by Andrew Golland Associates (AGA). The Council commissioned the District Valuer Services (DVS) to complete a further viability study25 to enable it to respond to representations made at Deposit Plan consultation and whilst this advises that changes should be made to the affordable housing requirements in other sub-market areas, it is consistent with the earlier viability work in respect of the and Rhos sub-market area (i.e. 0%). The Planning Obligation is therefore out of step with the most up to date viability evidence.

Prospect Estates have not yet made a formal approach to vary the Obligation, but have indicated that it is their intention to do so, with a view to submitting a new Planning application.

The Council is keen to ensure that this large brownfield site, within a Tier 2 settlement, is developed as it would aid the regeneration of the area, and is of the view that a site- specific regeneration policy would give greater certainty to the land owner that a future application with a renegotiated Obligation would be supported. This policy would need to be dealt with as a MAC. The suggested policy is:

Policy - The former Air Products sites, Acrefair, as shown on the Proposals Map, is allocated as a residential-led brownfield redevelopment site comprising a mix of units, to meet the need identified in the Local Housing Market Assessment, and the provision of public open space.

Reasoned justification - This is a large, brownfield site located within the settlement limit of Acrefair, a Tier 2 settlement. It has been vacant for a number of years since the closure and demolition of the former works. The Council is committed to securing its future as a residential-led regeneration opportunity to deliver housing over the Plan period. The site is well located in terms of its proximity to the World Heritage Site and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and well related to the Trevor Basin Masterplan Area. It is located in an area where there is a need for affordable housing as is set out in the Local Housing Market Assessment, however the viability assessment undertaken in support of the LDP recognises that market conditions in this area make it difficult to deliver

23 https://www.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/planning/lpg/guide28e.pdf 24 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/4920755 25 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5483299 8 open market housing. The level of affordable housing contribution expected in the settlement, based on the evidence is therefore 0%. The site has the benefit of planning permission with a requirement for a higher level of contributions, but order to secure the regeneration of this site and contribute to the Plan’s objectives of delivering sustainable development it is considered that a more positive policy approach will provide additional certainty of the Council’s commitment to the regeneration of this site, resulting in 100 units being delivered in the last 3 years of the Plan period.

In view of the above, the Council remains of the view that this site will come forward over the Plan period. However, if, because no formal application has yet been made to renegotiate the Planning Obligation, the Inspectors decide that there may be some delay in delivery (to allow time to renegotiate the Obligation, dispose of the site, determine Reserved Matters and discharge conditions) this would result in the site only partially being developed over the Plan period, with completions taking place, perhaps, in the final 3 years. In term of numbers, this would means that 100 dwellings would be delivered over the Plan period, leaving a shortfall of 132 dwellings, which would need to be allocated on sites from the reserve list, starting with Tier 1 to accord with the settlement hierarchy and sustainability principles. With the 94 dwelling shortfall for discounting 2 years of the windfall allowance this would give a total shortfall of 226 dwellings. This is not the Council’s position.

Should the Inspectors not agree that any of the housing will be delivered over the Plan period this would result in a shortfall of 232 dwellings that will need to be allocated elsewhere. With the 94 dwelling shortfall for discounting 2 year windfall allowance this would give a total shortfall of 326 dwellings. This, again, is not the Council’s position.

Delivery of Allocated Sites

KSS1 Land at Lower Berse Farm, Road, Wrexham The Council’s position remains that the development of KSS1 is dependent upon the prior completion, by WG, of an upgrade to Junction 4 of the A483. Policy SP4 sets a conservative limit of 200 dwellings being delivered over the Plan period after this upgrade has taken place, which reflects the level of certainty as to when these works were likely to take place at the time that the Plan was placed on deposit. The projection for KSS1 set out in SoCG126 envisages that dwellings will not be completed until 2026/27.

The policy was informed by the findings of the Wrexham Strategic Road Network Capacity and Improvement Study (March 2016)(EBT0127) which modelled the impact of future growth on Junction 4 and identified significant capacity constraints during peak times, as shown in the table below.

26 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5485515 27 http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5112505 9

Source: Table 5.1, Page 18, EBT01

WG’s (Trunk Road Agency) direction not to approve the Planning application on the former Steelworks because of impact on Junction 4 (Appendix 1) further supports the approach taken in Policy SP4.

The site developers have undertaken two traffic surveys which, they say, supports their view that 500 dwellings can be delivered on the site without works to Junction 4. The first was conducted on the 18th of April 2018 and submitted in a Technical Note that accompanied their representation, LDP877. This was not conducted over a long enough period to provide comprehensive data, but it is interesting that the note drew the following conclusion: The analysis presented in this report shows that junction 4 of the A483 is forecast to operate significantly over the capacity in both the AM and PM peak periods, at the end of the plan period, without any dwellings being delivered on the Redrow allocation site (Council’s emphasis).

The second traffic survey was conducted between the 10th and 16th of June 2019. Whilst it provides 7 days of data, the traffic counts were carried out at only two locations, shown on the map, below, but not on the slip roads, and therefore does not provide a comprehensive picture of existing traffic conditions.

Traffic count locations

10

There is insufficient evidence to justify major development that will clearly add significant traffic to Junction 4 in advance of the projected upgrade. The most recent timetable for the commencement of these works is set out in paragraph 4.3 of SoCG428 and suggests 2022. Should this happen, it is expected that the work will be completed by 2024, giving sufficient time for the developers to secure Planning permission, discharge conditions and commence development to enable dwellings to be completed and occupied in the same year. There is therefore scope for dwellings to be completed and occupied during the Plan period and this is reflected in the reserve sites list which identifies the site as having the potential to deliver an additional 200 dwellings over the Plan period (i.e. 400 overall) after the Junction has been improved.

Based on the evidence previously presented at the hearing, the Council cannot support 500 units coming forward over the Plan period without an upgrade to Junction 4 as argued by the developers and does not feel that anything over 400 is realistic after such an upgrade. The developers’ position does not acknowledge that development on the remainder of the Western Gateway site (23Ha opposite KSS1) has stalled due to existing capacity constraints during peak times on Junction 4 or that additional traffic would be placed on this junction from other developments, particularly the sites already with permission in Brymbo.

This site is one of the largest allocations in the Plan, located in the most sustainable (Tier 1) settlement and its development is key to the long term delivery of the strategy and objectives in the Plan. The infrastructure capacity constraints associated with Junction 4 are a significant barrier to the delivery of new housing and economic growth, as evidenced by EBT01. This point is important as it means that the allocation of significant areas of additional land in the Tier 1 settlement beyond what has already allocated is not possible; another reason why the Council, following the publication of the PS, had to look at options to release other sites in Tier 1 to meet the Plan’s objectives (i.e. KSS2). Of course, it is possible to allocate further land outside of the Tier 1 settlement, but this would undermine the spatial strategy and the Plan’s objectives, would not promote sustainable development in line with national policy and would harm other features, such as BMV agricultural land. This effect will be compounded if the Inspectors require that the housing figure is increased to the level identified in the PS.

KSS2 Land east of Cefn Road, Wrexham The trajectories for this site have been informed by extensive discussions with the developers and extensive technical surveys regarding the infrastructure requirements (Appendix 1 of SoCG229).

The outline Planning application for the northern part of the site is pending, but the developers are preparing detailed layouts to enable Reserved Matters for the first phases to be submitted as soon as that permission is granted. In respect of the southern part of the site, the developers intend to submit a hybrid application (part full/part outline) to be able to commence development once the application is determined and conditions have been discharged.

The Council understands that there may be concerns about the delivery rates on the southern part of the site, but, as stated in the Matter 3 hearing session and SoCG2, the delivery rates directly relate to the product that is being provided by Countryside Properties. Given that this is clearly evidenced and that it was reiterated at the hearing by the developer themselves, the Council is of the view that these delivery rates can be met.

28 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5480853 29 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5490379 11

Non-strategic allocations As with the KSS, the trajectories for the non-strategic housing allocations have been informed by discussions with the developers/site promotors. The current Planning status of all of allocations that have progressed to at least pre-application stage is set out in the Table, below. Whilst a number of the sites have been refused permission (all contrary to officer recommendation) one of the main factors in these decisions has been that they lie outside of the settlement boundary in the UDP. This demonstrates that the absence of an up to date development plan is having a significant impact upon the delivery of new housing.

Planning Status of Policy H1 allocations Site Location Units Comments Site with Planning permission or that are subject to applications Outline application pending (P/2019/0005). Significant KSS2 Land East of Cefn discussions undertaken in respect of key infrastructure 600 (North) Road, Wrexham requirements. Applicants preparing detailed layouts for first reserved matters submissions H1 Mold Road/A483 455 Outline planning application pending (P/2019/0923) Jacques Full planning permission granted 7.6.19 (P/2018/0898). H2 Scrapyard, 25 Application for discharge of conditions pending Wrexham (P/2019/0938) British Legion, Outline planning permission granted 15.10.19 H9 50 (P/2018/0933) Outline planning permission granted 26.6.17 Land at Home H10 362 (P/2014/0905), reserved matters approved 10.8.18 Farm, Llay (P/2017/1054). Development commenced early 2019 Land South of Outline permission refused 3.4.18 (P/2017/0772) H11 Berse Road, 25 Land at Gatewen Outline planning permission refused 1.7.19. Appeal H12 Road, New 112 pending Broughton Land at The Full planning permission refused 6.1.20 (P/2019/0312) H15 15 Grange, Land North & Outline planning permission refused 7.1.19. Appeal H16 South, 132 pending (P/2018/0560) Road, Rossett Full planning permission for 117 dwellings on a larger Land at Llay New H17 79 site area refused 3.11.2014. Appeal dismissed 3.7.15 Road, (P/2014/0480) Sites at pre-application stage KSS2 Land East of Cefn Significant pre-application discussions undertaking in 980 (South) Road, Wrexham respect of key infrastructure requirements Land off St Pre-application enquiry submitted. H14 Mary’s Avenue, 40 Overton

The Council is confident that the projections for the delivery of the non-strategic sites are realistic. Site H1 is subject to a recently submitted outline application, Site H9 has outline permission, Site H2 has full permission and Site H10 has commenced. Site H12 and Site H16 (Rossett) are subject to appeals, with a decision on Site H16 is imminent. Whilst Sites H11, H15 and H17 have been refused permission this is principally due to conflict with UDP policies and a significant amount of technical work has been undertaken in support of those applications.

12

The Litchfields research ‘Start to Finish’ identifies an average timescale for the Planning approval period, but also identifies examples where timescales have been much shorter. It also acknowledges that where applications are determined more quickly than average, it is because matters have substantially been addressed prior to the application being submitted. This demonstrates the importance of early engagement between the developers, the Council and other consultees and, as discussed above, there has already been extensive engagement and discussion regarding KSS2. The key issues with the other sites listed in the table, above, are also well known as a result of pre-application discussions and/or the sites having been through the application process. This will assist in reducing the time taken to determine applications and ensure that they are delivered over the Plan period.

It is worth noting that the Litchfields research was published in 2016. Statutory pre- application consultation (PAC) requirements did not come into force until 2016, so it is unlikely that it would have had any impact upon the delivery of the small number of sites identified in the study. Developers of the strategic and non-strategic sites that do not have Planning permission or where there is no current application or appeal will have to carry out PAC. In doing so they will obtain responses from statutory consultees that should enable them to address technical issues in advance of submitting applications, which should speed up the application process and delivery of the sites.

The Council is committed to working with the promotors of each of the allocated sites to ensure that the application process in expedited. To this end, in addition to providing the statutory pre-application advice service, the Council offers a Development Team Approach which enables developers to meet and seek advice from officers from Planning, Highways, Public Protection, Contaminated Land, Arboriculture and Ecology. This will ensure that key issues are identified and resolved at an early stage to reduce the risk of delay when Planning applications are submitted, which will mean that the number of dwellings shown on these sites in the Plan will be delivered. ii. Should the flexibility allowance be increased from 10%? If so, what would be the logical proportion?

No - it is acknowledged that the complexities of the development process, economic challenges and/or unforeseen local circumstances bring about a degree of uncertainty and that, as a consequence, not all of the housing sites will be delivered exactly to the timescales anticipated. A flexibility allowance of 10% (775 units) has therefore been added to the housing requirement (7750) to give the provision (8525) over the Plan period as a contingency.

Generally, an allowance of around 10% has been considered reasonable to provide the necessary level of flexibility in an LDP, and this figure is specifically referred to in Paragraph 5.59 of LDP Manual 3. Higher and lower flexibility allowances have been applied in other LDPs, depending on local circumstances (5.5% in , though 10% in Conwy and Gwynedd & Anglesey). As explained in paragraph 2.0.7 of BP08a30, the 10% figure takes account of the Council’s experience with its UDP, which also included a 10% allowance. While over the Plan period (1996-2011) this percentage was exceeded, much of that period coincided with an era of strong economic growth. The 10% figure has also been informed by discussions with landowners and developers of allocated sites regarding deliverability. It is clear from the table, above, that there is a clear intention to bring forward allocated sites for development early in the Plan period.

30 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5485879 13

The Council cannot envisage what any other logical percentage would be on and on what basis it would make such a decision. iii. What evidence is there that the development industry could not deliver the level of housing proposed in the PS?

The table, below, provides a comparison between the PS and Deposit Plan housing provision and requirement.

PS and DP Comparison Housing Housing Annual Average Completions Provision Requirement to meet requirement Preferred Strategy 11,715 10,650 710 Deposit Plan 8,525 7,750 517

The table, below, shows the remaining requirement once completions between 2013 and 2019 are deducted.

Completions 2013-2019 and remaining requirement Year Completions 2013-2014 215 2014-2015 235 2015-2016 199 2016-2017 328 2017-2018 222 2018-2019 362 Total 1,503 Remaining Requirement (PS) 9,147 Remaining Requirement (DP) 6,247

Once the completions are deducted, the average annual rate of completions over the remainder of the Plan period would need to be 1,016 to deliver the PS housing requirement, 46% more than the 694 needed to deliver the Deposit Plan requirement. As the table, below, shows, the former has not been achieved at any point over the past 15 years and only in 2006/07 did it come close – a time when the Council had an up to date Plan and the JHLAS sowed a 6.3-year housing land supply based on average past completions. Therefore, even with a large land supply, a favourable economic environment and an up to date Plan, completions were nowhere near what would be required to meet the PS requirement.

Completions 2002-2019 Year Total Completions 2002-2003 351 2003-2004 431 2004-2005 381 2005-2006 438 2006-2007 945 2007-2008 606 2008-2009 456 2009-2010 243 2010-2011 305 2011-2012 433 2012-2013 239 2013-2014 215 14

2014-2015 235 2015-2016 199 2016-2017 328 2017-2018 222 2018-2019 362

In addition to the above, there is a lack of deliverable sites to achieve a significantly higher housing requirement over the remainder of the Plan period. The Council needs to ensure that the Plan can deliver the proposed level of growth through the development of sites in sustainable locations. An increase in the housing requirement would put the deliverability of the Plan at significant risk and threaten sustainability. Such a large allocation could not be located in Wrexham town (Tier 1), mainly sue to infrastructure constraints, and would result in disproportionate allocations lower down the settlement hierarchy. This would, in effect, being an entirely different strategy/Plan.

Appendix 2 of INSP017R shows why candidate sites in Tier 2 and 3 settlements were not allocated. Table 6 of M3.01R sets out a list of reserve sites - cumulatively, these could deliver 828 dwellings. In addition, there were 6 sites presented at Deposit stage that had not previously been submitted during the call for sites or PS consultation. As the table below shows, these have the potential to deliver up to 503 dwellings based on details submitted with representations for Sites NSP007, NSP028 and NSP042 and Planning applications for Sites NSP016, NSP018 and NSP023 – if all of the sites were suitable for development, of course.

Site Reference Settlement Tier No. of dwellings NSP042 Gwersyllt 2 20 NSP018 Rossett 3 47 NSP023 Penley 3 9 NSP028 Rossett 3 150 NSP007 4 130-217 NSP016 Newbridge 4 60 Total 416-503

Of these sites, Site NSP016 lies in open countryside, Site NSP018 has had a Planning appeal dismissed, with concerns about drainage and impact upon protected species, and Site NSP023 does not comply with BP04a (less than 10 dwellings). The remaining sites, NSP007, NSP028 and NSP042, could potentially deliver between 300 and 367 dwellings, but this, again, should be treated with a significant degree of caution because it assumes that they are not subject to constraints that would prevent them from being developed or reduce the number of units that can be provided.

The reserve sites and some of the entirely new sites submitted at Deposit (NSP007, NSP028 and NSP042), may be able to deliver 1,128 to 1,195 dwellings, but even if the latter are found by the Inspectors to be acceptable, and assuming that the Council has identified sufficient supply to deliver the Plan requirement of 7,750, this would still be insufficient to deliver 10,650 and provide a 10% flexibility allowance. The Council therefore remains firmly of the view that the Preferred Strategy housing requirement is just not deliverable, and is certainly not desirable, for sustainability reasons.

15

4. SITE SELECTION PROCESS

Questions/Further Information i. How was the site selection methodology implemented? How were decisions made between sites with a large number and diverse range of attributes?

Site Selection Methodology and Implementation The Site Assessment Methodology (BP04a)31, in accordance with Paragraph 5.3.4.9 of LDPM2, sets out the criteria against which sites were assessed through a three stage filtering process and shows that the criteria used were appropriate Planning considerations. The process was iterative, leading up to the publication of the Deposit Plan. It rejected sites below a size threshold (10 units), those contrary to national Planning policy and those unsuitable due to fundamental constraints. It was informed by the Integrated LDP Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Appraisal (SEA/SA) objectives, which helped identify the extent to which sites would contribute to the Plan’s sustainable development objectives. In addition, it considered all sites for likely significant effects on European Sites (Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Areas or Ramsar Site) under the Habitats Regulations (HRA).

Call for Sites The Council invited the submission of sites for potential inclusion in the Plan from developers, land owners and the public between November 2012 and February 201332. It requested information on constraints, deliverability, viability, sustainability, phasing and other issues that would help determine the suitability of the site for allocation, in accordance with the LDPM2 Paragraph 5.3.4.5: ‘When putting forward sites, developers and landowners should include sufficient data to allow a robust assessment to be made (see section 6.4.1 & 2) including affordable housing, infrastructure and that the development is financially viable’.

Consultation on the Preferred Strategy (PS) (February 2016 to April 2016) provided an opportunity for people to submit alternative sites for consideration. Public consultation on the Candidate Sites, Alternative Sites and the assessment methodology took place as part of the PS consultation.

Alternative Sites 68 Alternative Sites were proposed through representations on the PS. These are located across the County Borough and are mainly for housing, but some are for employment, retail and mixed use. All of these sites have been assessed for their suitability for inclusion in the Plan in accordance with the Candidate Site Assessment Methodology set out in BP04 and BP04a. The Alternative Sites Register was placed on the Council’s consultation portal on 25th November 2016.

Site Assessment Process All 626 ‘Candidate Sites’ (which now included in their number the Alternative Sites) and supporting information submitted during the call for sites and PS stage were assessed as described in BP04: • Stage 1: Site identification, desk top site constraint identification, small/large site categorisation, consultation with key stakeholders (NRW, Welsh Water etc.) • Stage 2: Compliance with the Preferred Strategy

31 BP04a http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113349 32 KPD12a Deposit Consultation Report and Appendices https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5187981 16

• Stage 3: SA, with the exception of sites ruled out at Stage 1 (e.g. those with fundamental constraints, small sites, sites not in accordance with the spatial strategy). In addition allocated sites have been subject to HRA.

The assessment was led by Council officers, but reported to Members for endorsement via the Planning Policy Panel (for recommendation to the Executive Board). Sites with fundamental constraints (e.g. too small, C1/C2 flooding, not in accord with PPW10 search criteria) were rejected at Stage 1. The remaining sites, while acceptable in principle, required detailed assessment (involving consultation with specialist officers within the Council and relevant outside agencies and discussions with site proposers and stakeholders) informed by emerging evidence. As this was an iterative process it meant that sites could, at a later stage, fail Stage 1 because of the emergence of evidence of fundamental constraints. At the PS stage, sites which did not accord with the preferred spatial strategy for the distribution of housing growth were rejected (Stage 2). Stage 3 appraised sites against the SA Integrated Objectives using criteria set out in Appendix l of KPD11e33 (see also answer to question v., below).

The Council recorded the Candidate Site assessment in an internal database (see Appendix 2 for the template of the criteria used, and the summary of the conclusions published for public consultation at PS in KPD07 Site Register and Deposit Plan KPD07a and KPD11e stages). Consultation on the PS gave site proposers an opportunity to challenge the Council’s assessment.

In summary, the reasons why sites were rejected included: • Non-compliance with the PS approach of accommodating growth within sustainable locations in line with the settlement hierarchy • Fundamental constraints that are unlikely to be overcome • Insufficient scale to be allocated in the Plan (less than 10 units), but may have potential to contribute to the windfall allowance • The site has Planning permission so is already included in the housing supply as of 1 April 2016

The outcome of this process led to an ‘A-list’ of 19 allocations and a ‘B-list’ of 9 reserve sites (see below for a discussion about the ‘B-list’).

Decisions between Sites with Different Attributes Ultimately, the choice between sites with a large number and diverse range of attributes was made on the basis of the availability of sites without fundamental constraint that could be demonstrated to be deliverable within the Plan period – there being relatively few to choose from. The Council’s response (INSP017R32), details why some Tiers 2 and 3 settlements did not have allocations as a result: a lack of constraint-free, deliverable sites. From INSP17R, of the 186 sites in Tier 2 and 3 settlements without allocations, 54% have fundamental constraints, 32% are unavailable (e.g. built out, Planning permission), 10% have potential as windfall sites (too small to allocate or have significant constraints) and the remainder have a mix of deliverability and other reasons. ii. Were such decisions made consistently? Where is the evidence to demonstrate that this was the case?

Yes - the methodology itself was subject to consultation at PS stage with no substantive representations and no objections being made. To keep consistent records, the Council

33 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5233754 17 recorded the assessment in an internal database (template at Appendix 2) which was updated when additional information was provided.

As part of the Candidate Site Assessment Methodology the Council consulted key external and internal stakeholders, adding external verification to the data held on the database. Consultation at the PS and Deposit stages gave site promoters and the wider public an opportunity to comment on the conclusions of the assessment (PS KPD07 Site Register and Deposit stage KPD07a and KPD11e) and challenge the assessment summary, if they disagreed. The Council recorded all representations and, if they brought new evidence to its attention, has updated the database.

From the PS Report of Findings (KPD1334) the site register generated 1387 responses and all were recorded on the ‘Objective’ online consultation database for public view. The Council’s response to the site register consultation was included in KPD14a35 which was published for consultation with the Deposit Plan. The following screen shot from KPD14a is an example of how the Council responded to a representation promoting a site for development:

iii. Has sufficient weight been given to the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy in selecting sites?

Yes - the selection of sites conforms with the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy, as evidenced by Table 6 of BP1036 which shows the distribution of allocations by settlement tier (Tier 1: 64%, Tier 2: 22%, Tier 3: 11% and Tier 4: 2%) and Section 3 of INSP017R which explains why some settlements within the top 3 tiers do not have allocations – namely, that they have fundamental Planning and/or deliverability constraints (Appendices 1 and 2 of INSP017R). Table 5 of INSP017R demonstrates that while settlements may not have allocations, other sources of housing supply mean that there will still be growth. In this respect, the Plan supports the principle of development within Tier 1-3 settlements should sites come forward as windfalls.

WG supports the spatial strategy and its alignment with PPW10 in directing development to the most sustainable locations (M3.08.02 - ‘As stated in our Deposit representations and relevant hearing statements, the Welsh Government is supportive of the spatial strategy….The Welsh Government has not objected to the soundness of the plan on this basis. The Government is also of the view that the plan is in broad alignment with the Wales Spatial Plan and the emerging National Development Framework in that it directs 50% of all housing development to the primary settlement of Wrexham, with 65% of new housing allocations. 80% of housing development is located in Tier 1 and Tier 2

34 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/4944661 35 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/4944667 36 http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113358 18 settlements collectively, which in the Government’s view, aligns with PPW Edition 10 in ensuring land is directed to the most sustainable locations’).

If the Inspectors are minded to allocate additional housing sites then the Council’s position is that the most sustainable location for development is Wrexham (Tier 1) followed by settlements in Tier 2, then Tier 3 and finally, but only in exceptional circumstances, Tier 4; the choice of additional allocations being sequence. If the Inspectors are minded to allocate significant levels of growth, opportunities to do so in the most sustainable location, Wrexham, are very limited and such growth would have to be located in Tiers 2 and 3, a significantly less sustainable outcome. In addition, it would also inevitably require the release of protected land whether that be BMV agricultural land, SLA, Green Wedge or some other designation. iv. Did the SA consider alternatives properly and adequately?

Yes - the SA (at Appendix F of KPD11e), considered a range of reasonable alternative options including alternative Key Strategic Sites, the relative merits of different spatial approaches and alternative options (sites) in assessing Policy H1 (housing allocations). It is not the role of the SA to decide on alternative options, but to provide information to make the decision making process more transparent. The SA achieved this by generating reasonable alternatives and testing their relative merits. However, as discussed below, reasonable options, especially for sites, were very limited. Sites which failed to meet the preferred spatial strategy or that were deemed unviable and undeliverable (on the basis of information known to the Council at the time) were not considered to be realistic alternatives for inclusion in the Plan. Furthermore, alternative options at a Plan level need to be borne in mind when considering site alternatives and to identify broad sustainability issues across spatial areas. Alternative spatial options were considered in Section 3, Paragraph 6.1.3 of the SA report (KPD11c) where the relative merits of different spatial approaches were considered.

Appendix F, Table 5 of KPD11e considers different approaches to the spatial distribution of development (Policy SP2, Location of Development). Taking an environmental-led approach or a viability-led approach to locating development resulted in significant spatial variations, which allowed the Council to consider different spatial approaches to locating development, should sites be available. These options could reduce environmental impacts, (e.g. on natural resources, local landscape, minerals and local ecology), especially around Wrexham and nearby village which are rich in minerals, agricultural land (including BMV), or address viability related issues (affordable housing and infrastructure provision) which constrain many areas, but which are also opportunities in the rural east of the County Borough.

However, an approach based entirely on avoiding all environmental impacts or focussing development entirely in the most viable areas is not realistic as the least environmental constrained and most viable areas broadly have the least sustainable locations. Consequently, the assessment proposed an environmental-led approach and a viability- led approach to draw out environmental and viability improvements that could be gained from alternative spatial and site options.

Table 6.5 considers the relative merits of alternative strategic housing site options. Only two large-scale key strategic sites were submitted as Candidate Sites, but a number of sites to the north of Wrexham were submitted independently which could, in principle, be considered as a single large site (amalgamation of Sites WR25, 26 & 27CS, GWE06CS GWE01 & 02OS: RR01 & 02CS; WR04, 06, 13 & 22CS). The relative merits of KSS1, KSS2 and the amalgamated site were then compared. 19

Section 6.3.2 details the spatial/key strategic site options which were rejected as unreasonable and the reasons why (‘brownfield-led’, ‘end of spectrum environmental’, ‘new town’, ‘waste water treatment capacity’, ‘A483 junction capacity’).

Table 7.4 considers mitigation opportunities for all of the policies, the assessment for Policy H1 (housing allocations) and implicitly considers different site options to deliver the housing total. However, it is the lack of deliverable sites free from fundamental constraint that is the key issue in considering alternative options. Good examples include Brymbo and Overton. Site NSP056 (Brymbo) was only made available for consideration at Deposit stage so could not be considered as a realistic option in the Deposit Plan SA. While elements of the site lie within the settlement boundary, at the pre-deposit stage there was no intent to develop the site so it would not be appropriate to consider it as a reasonable alternative. Site O02CS (Overton) had been assessed and consulted on with key stakeholders, but deliverability could not be determined, all attempts to contact the site owner having failed. Appendices 1 and 2 of the Council’s submission (INSP017R) detail the reasons why many sites were rejected and could not be considered as options.

The reasonable alternatives that could be considered in Policy H1 were the sites making up the Council’s ‘B-List’. These had been assessed through the Candidate Sites methodology and not dismissed because of fundamental constraints, though there were known risks with delivery or because of constraints which made them less favourable than the ‘A-list’. At the time, the assessment identified the harmful effects of allocations and considered how alternatives could improve on the sustainability outcomes. The conclusion was: ‘Harmful impacts on BMV agricultural land, highways capacity, green wedge, mineral resources; with effects on ecology, landscape, historic assets requiring mitigation at detailed planning application stage. Viability could be improved by including more sites from Overton, Rossett, , ; Affordable Housing provision could be enhanced with sites on Cefn Road and the rural settlements in Overton, Rossett, Bronington; Impacts on BMV could be reduced by locating development in Broughton (North), , , Gwersyllt, Llay; Impacts on minerals could be reduced by including sites from Bronington, Chirk, Gresford and Overton; Reduce number of sites with impacts on Green Wedge and SLA’. v. How were the results of the SA quantified and used to inform the selection of sites?

The role of the SA was to provide information to make the decision making process more transparent. The relative sustainable merits of sites are one of the considerations in the preparation of the Plan, together with other issues, including deliverability and viability. The assessment of sites was submitted with the Deposit Plan Consultation as part of the Plan evidence.

The main technique used was to assess both the positive and negative effects of each site against the Integrated Objectives, focussing on ‘significant’ effects. Given the broad nature of the Plan and the difficulty in separating other causes of effects, a qualitative approach has been taken, supported by professional judgement – the ‘Planning judgement’ – supplemented by a traffic-light approach. The assessment is recorded in KPD11e Appendix I37. Supporting the assessment of effects is the evidence, research and data contained primarily in SA Scoping Report, Technical Background & Topic Papers, LDP evidence base, constraint maps, site submissions, BP04, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (EB101) and Habitats Regulations Appraisal Reports.

37 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5233754 20

While the Integrated Objectives framework in the Initial Sustainability Appraisal Report was the basis of the methodology, this framework needed refinement to capture issues specific to the assessment of individual sites at Plan level. It is not possible, at the plan‐making stage, to know precisely what kind of development will go on each site, the precise impacts or what mitigation through design or Planning Obligations could avoid or mitigate any problems - for instance, what combination of housing, employment and infrastructure a developer might propose when they make a Planning application, what site layout and development design they will propose or what Planning conditions or Obligation will be appropriate.

For other aspects of sustainability, like waste management, the choice of development sites would not affect the objective and this topic has not been assessed for individual sites. On the other hand, detailed information is available on other sustainability topics, such as whether they are near to sites of nature conservation importance or in areas of flood risk identified in constraint maps and from engagement with stakeholders, such as Natural Resources Wales.

For each Integrated Objective a range of criteria using a traffic light system were used to assess the sites (Appendix e of KPD11e) (see Table, below). This identifies the key criteria that a Plan-level assessment of sites should consider and each site has been assessed against the objective and criteria.

In order to make sense of the mass of data/information and make comparisons of the sustainability merits of sites easier to understand, a traffic light system has been used. This scored each site against each objective using a range of effects (e.g. very significant to neutral). Effects are expressed in relative terms (very positive to very negative).

Sites have been screened, at Stage 1 of the assessment, for constraints which could not be overcome, where development would be contrary to the search sequence for site allocation identified in national policy (sites in open countryside, contrary to TAN15 flood policy, without safe access, etc). They have also been screened to remove sites delivering 21 fewer than 10 units as these would not be allocated. Sites which were dismissed in Stage 1 have not been subject to SA. The Table, below, taken from Appendix I of the SA contains an extract summary of the SA assessment of sites.

vi. What is the status of the sites on the reserve list? Could they be allocated for residential development? Have they been the subject of public consultation and SA?

The 15 sites on the reserve list (Table 6 of M.3.01R) comprise 7 ‘B-list’ sites, 7 ‘other sites’ and 1 ‘new site’. The sites are listed in the table in order of settlement Tier, and therefore sustainability.

All of the sites on the ‘B-list’ have been endorsed by the delegated Members group as potential additional housing sites should they be required by the Inspectors during the Examination in Public. The ‘other sites’ have not, but any changes to the allocations in the Plan (and for that matter any other changes to the Plan) proposed as Matters Arising Changes (MAC) would need to be re-assessed (SA/HRA) and the MAC and assessments subject to public consultation. While the MAC presents an opportunity for public and stakeholder consultation, the fact that sites on the reserve list have already been through some consultation, either as part of Plan preparation or as Planning applications, gives comfort that constraints have been identified and that the sites are deliverable.

All of the reserve list of sites are suitable for housing allocation and have been subject to constraint analysis using the Candidate Site Assessment Methodology. No fundamental constraints have been identified that would prevent them being delivered during the Plan period. All of them have been subject to SA and public consultation as Candidate Sites (with the exception of NSP011, Summerhill, NSP056, Brymbo and APM08, Caego which are the subjects of Planning applications). vii. How were the reserve sites identified? Was the process rigorous and thorough? Are there likely to be any other suitable candidate or deposit sites which have not been selected?

The reserve list (Table 6 of M.3.01R) is the outcome of a rigorous review of Candidate Sites submitted for consideration in the Plan. Again, the sites are listed in the table in order of settlement Tier, and therefore sustainability.

22

The ‘B-list’ sites were identified by officers in 2017 as having development potential, but being less favoured as allocations than the ‘A-list’ sites and/or having constraints that made it unlikely that they would be brought forward during the Plan period without active intervention. However, it was recognised that should any ‘A-list’ sites be withdrawn or not otherwise taken forward due to deliverability and/or viability problems, then compensatory ‘B-list’ sites would need to be brought forward. It was considered inappropriate to publicly distinguish between so called ‘Category A and B’ sites, because a detailed assessment was to be carried out which may have changed the categorisations.

The ‘other sites’ were identified by reviewing pre-Deposit representations in 2018 for changes in evidence, such as a Planning application/permission.

It is the Council’s view that no other sites have been demonstrated to be suitable and deliverable because site proposers have not submitted sufficient information in support of their sites and/or no evidence has been made available to persuade the Council that the sites could be delivered within the Plan period. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (representations made at Deposit stage, evidence submitted in the Examination in Public and known changes in circumstances) there is no justification for reviewing all Candidate Sites submitted through the Plan process. Therefore the scope of the search for additional reserve sites has been limited to those submitted at Deposit or where there are known changes in circumstances (e.g. Planning applications). Consequently, the starting point for the reserve list has been sites from the ‘B- list’ created in the pre-Deposit Candidate Site assessment process, followed by ‘other sites’ (see below).

The ‘B-list’ • 9 sites were identified by officers as having development potential, but being less favoured as allocations than the ‘A-list’ and/or having constraints that made it unlikely that they would be brought forward during the Plan period without active intervention. • At its meeting on 14th December 201738 Planning Policy Panel endorsed the list of 9 ‘Category B’ sites (the ‘B-list’) as contingency sites should any of the allocated sites not come forward (Appendix 3 of the report to the Panel) • For the Examination in Public the list has been updated to reflect changes in site circumstances, national Planning policy and evidence. From the original list of 9 sites 3 have been removed (CHIR002UCS - Station Avenue/Station Road, Chirk) because the site owner has confirmed that he does not intend to promote it, and the other because of site constraints). • These sites comply with the Spatial Strategy and have constraints or deliverability issues which it may be possible to overcome, but there would be some challenges in doing so (hence why other sites (the ‘A-list’) were chosen for allocation).

The ‘Other sites’ • During consultation on the Deposit Plan, representations in support of 46 sites that had previously been submitted as Candidate or Alternative Sites, but rejected, were re-submitted. While the Council was not persuaded that any of them should be included in the Plan as Focussed Changes39 it has reconsidered them for inclusion on the reserve list. • The majority of these sites have been dismissed because the promoters have submitted insufficient supporting information (LDP Manual2 Paragraph 5.3.4.5: ‘When putting forward sites, developers and landowners should include sufficient data to

38 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5200287 39 Appendix 1 of Executive Board report HEP/62/18 http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/information_reports/2018/appendix1-ldp-reps.pdf

23

allow a robust assessment to be made) and the Council is not aware of any material changes in circumstances since the sites were dismissed through the Candidate Site assessment process. • Those 7 sites that have been added to the reserve list have been done so on the strength of evidence that has emerged since the ‘B-list’ was produced.

Newly Summited Sites • During consultation on the Deposit Plan, representations in support of 10 sites that had not been considered before were submitted40. • The Council also received 16 submissions to amend settlement boundaries and other changes to the Proposals Map (KPD2041), which, in principle, could release entirely sites for development. • 1 site (a Proposals Map change) was added to the reserve list.

Site Assessment The approach to site assessment is dependent on whether the site has been considered previously or newly submitted at Deposit stage. The review of Deposit site submissions, including the information provided, is attached as Appendix 3, but in summary:

• Previously Submitted Sites Consultation on the Deposit Plan gave site proposers an opportunity to address the reasons why their sites had not been selected. The Council has set out the approach to site selection in BP04 and outlined the reasons why Candidate Sites were rejected in the Site Registers (KPD07) and Sustainability Appraisal (KPD11e). Re-submitted sites were reviewed for changes in circumstances that could justify a change in the assessment conclusion. The submission of additional information addressing reasons for rejecting sites has been a significant consideration. Several sites are subject to Planning applications and appeals and the proposers have been able to call on information supplied in these applications to support their submissions. This has proved valuable in assessing the sites for potential allocation in the Plan; overcoming the reasons why some of them were initially rejected, and hence now proposed on the reserve list. In reviewing previously submitted sites, in only a limited number of cases was there justification for adding the site to the reserve list.

• Newly Submitted Sites The Council has reviewed the 10 submissions, but none has provided sufficient information to allow it to undertake a robust assessment, as required by LDPM2 Paragraph 5.3.4.5 ‘When putting forward sites, developers and landowners should include sufficient data to allow a robust assessment to be made’) (Appendix 3). At the very least, the Council’s Candidate Site and SA assessment methodology was available to site promoters to enable them to provide the required information on site constraints and sustainability42.

LDPM2, Paragraph 5.3.4.10 states ‘It is important to be able to demonstrate that there are no fundamental impediments to the development of the sites allocated in the plan and to be able to specify the timescales within which constraints will be overcome. Therefore potential sites should be discussed with statutory consultees at an early stage to identify

40 KPD19 and KPD19a Sites Submitted at Deposit Plan Consultation September 2018 https://wrexham- consult.objective.co.uk/file/5174104 and https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5461298 41 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5187973 42 As an aside, contrary to the Inspectors statement in para 4.4 the Gladman site submission have not submitted an SA assessment using the Council’s SA methodology KPD11e https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5233754

24 any fundamental issues’. No evidence has been submitted with the representations to demonstrate that such issues have been addressed. A pertinent example of the importance of these early discussions is the Gladman proposal for Marchwiel. The site representation does not acknowledge the existence of a main gas pipeline running through the middle of the site. Without responses from statutory consultees on this matter, HSE, Wales and West and The National Grid, the impact on site deliverability is unknown. Though it is accepted that consultation on the MAC provides an opportunity for this, allocation in advance of such views is a risk to plan deliverability and soundness.

• Proposals Map Changes 9 of the 16 proposals did not relate to housing and 3 are too small to consider (during the examination the Council has supported amending a settlement boundary APM01 as an action point). Of the remaining 4, 3 have been dismissed for lacking sufficient information to make a robust decision (Appendix 3). The only Proposal Map change that is suitable for inclusion on the reserve list is Site APM06, a small extension to the Tier 3 allocation H1.11 in Caego. This site has already been assessed as a Candidate Site and additional supporting information provided to the Examination in Public (OPED001, 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f and 2g).

Conclusion Having reviewed the site submission representations 8 sites have been added to the ‘B- list’ to make the reserve list (Table 6 of M.3.01R), as summarised below. • Tier 1 - KSS1 Wrexham - an additional 200 units. WG work addressing junction capacity of the A483 Junction 4 has advanced quicker than conservatively allowed for in the Plan allowing an additional 200 units to be delivered in the Plan period; • Tier 2 - NSP009 Vicarage Fields Gresford; The deposit plan representation did not provide any technical information to support the scale of proposal promoted, but in view of the lack of allocations in Gresford the candidate site assessment was reviewed. The fundamental constraint to development of this site is highway safety and capacity but a much smaller scale of proposal could be supported by highways. In the absence of a Transport Assessment a development of 15 units would be acceptable. • Tier 2 - NSP011 (Previously GWE008CS) Summerhill; this submission is subject to a Planning Application (P/2017/0651), all necessary supporting information has been provided, constraints can be demonstrated to be overcome and a decision is imminent. • Tier 2 - CH04CS Chirk Green: similar to NSP009, the deposit plan representation did not provide any technical information to support the scale of proposal promoted, and highway safety was the fundamental constraint but on review with highways, a smaller scale of development could be supported. • Tier 3 - NSP056 (Part), Brymbo; the principle of development within the settlement limit is accepted if the site came forward as a windfall. The A483 capacity constraints applied to KSS1 (i.e. housing can only be delivered once capacity has been addressed) also apply to Brymbo. • Tier 3 - APM08, Caigo: this is proposal for a small extension to an existing allocated site boundary; the full site area has also been subject to a planning application. • Tier 3 - NSP012 (O05OS), Overton - site submissions have overcome reasons for site rejection • Tier 3 - NSP014 (O06OS), Overton, site submissions have overcome reasons for site rejection

The Council is confident there are no other suitable sites which have not been selected. There is no evidence to suggest alternative candidate site options have addressed identified constraints, are of suitable size to be allocated, comply with the spatial strategy and are available for development. With regards to new sites submitted at Deposit, none 25 have supplied sufficient information to demonstrate they accord with the candidate site methodology, none have been assessed using the Council’s SA methodology and none have shown engagement with key stakeholders to identify constraints and infrastructure requirements. viii. Are there any sites submitted as Deposit stage with SA assessment which could be considered for allocation? If so, which are these?

No - Appendix 3 details all sites submitted at Deposit, assessments undertaken to date and reasons why sites have not been selected for the reserve list. A number of sites submitted at Deposit are re-submissions of sites (Candidate or Alternative) that were assessed by the Council using the Candidate Site Assessment Methodology and SA at pre-Deposit stages. Therefore, if these sites were to be proposed as MAC, no further SA assessment would be required. No new site submitted for the first time at Deposit has been accompanied by an SA that used the Council’s methodology. ix. Does the approach to the wider Brymbo area indicate that there may be other potentially significant sites which have not been identified in the LDP?

No - The approach taken to the Brymbo site has been entirely consistent with the Candidate Site methodology. The assessment reflected the boundaries of the site proposals and proposed land uses submitted by the site promoter at the call for sites stage and the constraints identified on the site and ‘wider area’, particularly the capacity of Junction 4 of the A483. There is no reason to conclude from the treatment of Brymbo that other sites should or could have been identified in the Plan.

5. FORMER STEELWORKS BRYMBO

Questions/Further Information i. Why wasn’t all the former steelworks land at Brymbo identified by the Council as candidate sites?

Given what the Inspectors have said in their letter/note and the complex history of smaller sites and Planning applications on and around the former steelworks site, the Council refers to the former steelworks site as ‘the wider area’ in this report. This area and the various component sites are shown on the map attached as Appendix 4.

This larger area was not identified as a Candidate Site because it was not submitted for consideration during the call for sites (November 2012 to February 2013) or as an Alternative Site during the Preferred Strategy (PS) consultation (February to April 2016). However, BDL put forward three smaller Candidate Sites (BRY09CS, a site lying outside the existing and proposed settlement boundary) and BRY10CS and BRY15CS, both previously developed land within the settlement boundary).

The reasons why these sites were discounted are set out in Paragraphs 39-48 of INSP017R. BRY10CS and BRY15CS both have Planning permissions for B1, B2, B8 and D1 development. These have not been implemented, probably because for a considerable period of time the northern part of the larger area lacked a key piece of infrastructure: the north-south spine road, which was opened to traffic in April 2015 and adopted in 2016.

26

A further site within the larger area in the Site Register (BYM024NUCS) was identified in the Urban Capacity Study. It was part of the committed supply because it benefitted from two outline permissions for residential development, first granted in 2006 and renewed on two occasions, most recently in 2014. Both permissions were extant at the time of Plan preparation, but have since lapsed.

The four sites referred to above do not add up to the wider area.

The site within the settlement boundary (NSP056) was submitted as a potential allocation as a representation made to the Deposit Plan consultation. The site outside of the settlement boundary (NSP030) was also identified at this stage. The reasons for discounting these sites are explained in Paragraph 52 of INSP017R. NSP030 incorporates all of BRY09CS and additional land to the west. The Council had no formal indication at the time of Plan preparation that the whole of NSP056 might be made available for development over the Plan period or that a residential and/or mixed use allocation would be likely to come forward or be deliverable over the Plan period. Therefore, officers did not identify that part of the ‘wider area’ within the settlement limit as a Candidate Site. Paragraphs 37 and 48 of INSP017R identify key constraints prohibiting further major residential development in Brymbo. The Council did not and does not consider it appropriate to allocate the land outside the settlement boundary, or to extend the settlement boundary to include it, as it has been restored to agriculture and occupies a prominent, elevated position in the landscape (this is discussed further, below).

It should be noted that there are five other sites in BDL ownership both within and outside the wider area (as shown in Appendix 4). Site BRYM024NUCS, within the former steelworks site, has had a series of permissions for residential development, now lapsed. Sites BRY11CS, BRY12CS, BRY13CS and BRYM025NUCS, outside the wider area have had permission for residential development for a number of years, which have yet to be implemented. Sites BRY11CS, BRY12CS, BRY13CS have extant outline permissions and BRYM025NUCS has a resolution to grant full permission for 18 dwellings pending completion of a Planning Obligation. In total, these sites have the capacity to deliver in excess of 100 dwellings. All of the site histories for the sites mentioned above are shown in Appendix 5. ii. Why was it not all assessed in the sites register? The Council assessed the Candidate Sites that were put forward, but not the wider area. The wider area was not put forward as a potential allocation until representations at Deposit stage. The reason why Sites NSP030 and NSP056 were not assessed post- Deposit is set out in Paragraph 52 of INSP017R. iii. Why is there no strategic, site-specific policy for the wider site? This is explained in Paragraphs 37 and 48 of INSP017R. Excluding the part of the wider area outside the settlement boundary, the remainder of the site lies within the settlement boundary where Policy SP2 establishes the principle in favour of development where any site constraints can be addressed.

The rationale for applying Policy EM1 to 8Ha of the wider area within the settlement boundary is discussed in Paragraph 46 of INSP017R. This would not preclude non-B1, B2 and B8 Use Class development from coming forward as Policy EM3 provides sufficient flexibility for alternative uses if evidence is submitted with an application to demonstrate that there is no realistic prospect of the employment land coming forward for business, industry or warehousing.

27

Sites NSP030 and NSP056 are the subjects of an outline application (P/2019/0546) for up to 450 dwellings, a primary school, 1,395 sq. m of retail, a restaurant/public house and Class D1 use. This application would address some of the infrastructure concerns identified in Paragraph 37 of INSP017R by facilitating the school, retail, public house/ restaurant and Class D1 use, and provide employment opportunities. However it does not, and would not, address the capacity constraints at Junction 4 of the A483. Indeed, WG (Trunk Road Agency) has directed that permission should not be granted (Appendix 1).

The Council has no objection to the development of land within the existing and proposed settlement boundary (Site NSP056), but would not support the development of greenfield land outside of the settlement limit (Site NSP030) (see discussion in iv. below). iv. In the light of the key issues, such as the lack of brownfield land, areas of multiple deprivation, and the need for infrastructure, services and facilities, is the absence of a positive policy approach to this area contrary to the strategic objectives?

The Council would refute the suggestion or inference that all of the ‘wider area’ is a large brownfield site. The area of land corresponding to Site NSP056 lies within the settlement boundary and is very clearly previously developed land. This cannot be said of Site NSP030 which, as shown in the photographs attached as Appendix 6, has clearly been restored to agricultural use.

The Council has, and is, providing a positive policy approach to previously developed sites, such as the steelworks, provided they are located within settlement limits. Policy EM1 identifies 8Ha for employment purposes within the former steelworks site, but Policy EM3 would allow for the land to be released for other purposes provided the specific requirements of the policy are met. Paragraph 6.98 of the policy confirms that where this is the case priority would be given to mixed use development, comprising employment, housing and community facilities. Outline permission was granted in March 2017 (P/2017/0105) on 2.2Ha at the northern end of the land. Whilst the application was determined with regard to policies of the adopted UDP, it demonstrates that the Council has taken a positive approach to developments that deliver community facilities where they are within settlement boundaries. The Council has also previously granted permission for a retail development on Site BRY15CS (P/2012/0816), though this permission has lapsed.

If the Inspectors are minded to propose that the designation of part of the site for employment purposes should be removed, it would still not be appropriate to allocate all of the land (corresponding to Site NSP056) for residential development for the reasons set out in paragraph 37 of INSP017R. To ensure the development of the site is carried out in a sustainable manner and contributes towards minimising the need for travel, the development would need to include a mix of community facilities.

To the south of the EM1 allocation lies approximately 3.5Ha (broadly corresponding to Site BRY15CS and part of Site NSP056) and to the northwest a further 1.4Ha (Site BRYM024NUCS). Both sites lie within the settlement boundary. Policy SP2, Location of Development, directs new development within defined settlement boundaries and employment areas and therefore established that, subject to complying with other relevant Plan policies, residential, community, employment and retail development would be acceptable in principle.

28

Taken together, the settlement boundary and Policies SP2, EM1 and EM2 do constitute a positive policy approach to the area to enable it to be redeveloped should appropriate proposals come forward. Given the matters discussed in Paragraph 37 of INSP017R, the approach taken in the Plan towards the form steelworks site is entirely consistent with the strategic objectives, SO4, SO5, SO6 and SO10.

Page 38 of PPW10 specifically excludes land from the definition of brownfield/previously developed land where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape over time so that they can be considered as part of the natural surroundings. Whilst Site NSP030 (and, by extension, Site BREY09CS) were once developed, it is clear from the attached photographs (Appendix 6) that it has been fully restored and now blends into the rural landscape surrounding Brymbo to the extent that it can no longer considered previously developed land. In addition, the land is elevated relative to the land within the settlement boundary, with the extent of the existing built up area being clearly delineated by the embankment along its eastern edge. Development of the land would represent a significant and harmful encroachment of development of urban form into the countryside and landscape surrounding Brymbo.

With regard to the sites within the settlement boundary, there are considerable constraints to permitting further large scale residential development which are discussed in Paragraphs 37 and 48 of INSP017R. The WG (Trunk Roads) response to application reference P/2019/0546 with regard to Junction 4 of the A483 (Appendix 1) is particulate pertinent.

The Council has included Site NSP056, within the settlement boundary, on its reserve list and identified it as having the potential to deliver up to 350 dwellings. This is broadly consistent with the details submitted with the outline application which is pending. The application also proposes to develop Site NSP030, outside the settlement boundary, for residential use, which the Council considered inappropriate for the reasons set out above.

If the Inspectors are minded to accept that further allocations of land for housing are required and that Brymbo would be an appropriate location, the Council would argue that only that part of the site within the settlement boundary is suitable a mix of non-residential uses, including a school and small scale retail in order to address the issues set in Paragraphs 37 of INSP017R.

CONCLUSION REGARDING HOUSING REQUIREMENT, SUPPLY AND DELIVERY

As previously stated in evidence and as restated in this report, the Council does not agree that the housing requirement should be increased. With regard to supply, the Council accepts that 94 additional dwellings need to be allocated over the Plan period to meet the housing requirement – because of the 2-year windfall allowance – but no more (this is consistent with Table 3 in M3.01R). These can be allocated on sites from the reserve list, starting with the most sustainable locations in the settlement hierarchy.

29

6. GYPSY AND TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION

Unmet Need

It remains the Council’s submission that the residual need over the Plan period is 17 pitches, as set out in its response to Action Point 2, Matter 7 from the 26 September 2019 Hearing and as summarised in the table below.

Pitch requirement 5 15 Arising from Total year year reduction at Ruthin Road GTAA 15 28 6 34 Deposit Plan position (permission granted for 9 6 19 6 25 pitches (Chirk - 7, Fennant Road - 2) July 2018 position (permission granted for 4 2 15 6 21 pitches (Southsea) July 2019 position (permission granted for 4 -2 11 6 17 pitches ()

The allocations proposed in the Plan meet the identified need. While there is no 5-year need – because of recent Planning permissions for private sites – the Council recognises that it has a legal duty to identify allocations to meet the defined need over the Plan period and that is desirable for some pitches to be provided sooner rather than later to improve space and amenity standards on the existing Council site.

Site Selection Process

Paragraph 6.1 Bullet Point 1 - Site Selection Criteria and Circular 005/2018 On the issue of process, the criteria and methodology used to assess the sites are summarised in Background Paper 06 (BP0643). However, to demonstrate further that the process is sound, a blank copy of the assessment template used in 2017 by officers, showing in detail the selection process and criteria is attached as Appendix 7 (NB. this template has been updated to 2020, but only in respect of sites between 0.3 and 0.5Ha). The site selection summary (EBH0744), maps of all of the sites (EBH07b45) and the whole selection database (EBH07a) 46 have been publicised on the ‘Objective’ LDP consultation portal.

As can be seen from the template, the criteria used are comprehensive and, the Council would argue, remain pertinent and appropriate. The groupings of ‘absolute’ and ‘mitigable’ Planning constraints are comparable to those used by other Council’s in preparing their Plans (e.g. Swansea) and by Councils and Inspectors when determining Planning applications and appeals, respectively. They have due regard to the sequential approach set out in Paragraph 38 of Welsh Government (WG) Circular 005/2018 (‘the Circular’) (see field and cells entitled ‘Site Detail’, ‘within settlement’, ‘partially within settlement’, ‘edge of settlement’ and ‘out of settlement’) and the other criteria set out in Paragraphs 37 and 55 - 57 of the Circular, including proximity to amenities, services and facilities (Stage 4). In point of fact, the approach required by Paragraph 38 of the Circular is not significantly different to that required by Paragraph 20 of Circular 30/2007 which states: ‘In deciding

43 BP06 http://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5113356 44 EBH07 https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5592626 45 EBH07b https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5592629 46 EBH07a https://wrexham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/5592628

30 where to provide for gypsy and traveller sites, local planning authorities should first consider locations in or near existing settlements with access to local services…’ The Council therefore considers that the process was sound and as it has already considered the sequential approach to site selection within its methodology, revisiting this part of the methodology is unnecessary and will prove fruitless.

On the issue of substance, the sites can be broken down by location as follows:

Within Settlement Partially within Edge of Settlement Outside Settlement Limit settlement 260 7 58 94

While the majority lie within or adjacent to settlements it does not follow that they are suitable and/or available for allocation just because of this more sustainable location. In fact, the assessment has revealed no suitable sites within, partially within or immediately adjacent to (‘edge of’) settlements so, in accordance with Paragraph 39 of the Circular, the Council has considered sites in the countryside. Of the three sites proposed to be allocated, Brymbo is the most adjacent to a settlement boundary followed by Llay and then Hanmer.

Bullet Point 2 - Private v Council-owned Sites It is not correct to infer that the Council did not seek or then consider privately owned sites or that the site selection process in any way disadvantaged, deterred or excluded private sites from coming forward or from being considered. It is worth noting that the 5-year need has been met by private sites coming forward, albeit as Planning applications/appeals rather than Candidate Sites.

Over a number of years, as part of its research and consultation for the GTAA the Council asked the Gypsy & Traveller community to identify land in their ownership that they wanted to be considered for allocation, but none was suggested. Since then, as noted above, several sites have come forward as Planning applications.

The call for Candidate Sites was sent to a wide variety of private and public organisations, including the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups. The submission form and guidance note listed examples of land uses that the Council was seeking submissions for, explicitly referring to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation (note 1 on the form and question 3 on the guidance note attached as Appendices 8 and 9). In response, two sites were submitted (GC04CS and WR15CS referred to in Paragraph 5.1 of Appendix 1 of BP06). These were assessed as part of the Candidate Site assessment with Site GC04CS being ruled out on highway grounds and Site WR15CS for being a very small (0.26Ha) private site (this site is an existing private Gypsy and Traveller site subject to a personal permission; a Planning application to remove that condition is pending). Had any other sites been submitted they would have been properly assessed in accordance with the methodology.

The Council has considered, but not allocated, private land – such as some of the smaller residential Candidate Sites – without the consent of the owners because it would have been completely unrealistic to do so. Experience has shown that the owners would not allow them to be developed and depending on them to meet the identified need would therefore not give any certainty as to their delivery. The Council has considered compulsorily purchasing private land for this purpose (in accordance with Paragraph 47 of the Circular), but concluded that this would be prohibitively expensive, time consuming and difficult, again placing the deliverability of the sites in considerable doubt. As with any form

31

of social ‘housing’ the only assured method of delivering public Gypsy & Traveller accommodation is to use publicly-owned land; not least because WG capital funding requires Council ownership.

In accordance with Paragraph 47 of the circular, the Council has sought interest from other public bodies including WG, Registered Social Landlords, the Health Board, Community Councils, utility companies, etc. to use any of their land, but has received none and therefore has had to consider land from its own portfolio, the majority of which consists of small areas of public open space (POS). Again, this is an indication of the very limited number of sites available to choose from.

Bullet Point 3 - Site Configuration, the GTAA and Gypsy &Traveller Aspirations In terms of the size and nature of individual pitches and the number, location, size and configuration of sites, the Council has been guided by: • the aspirations of the Gypsy & Traveller communities expressed through the GTAA, more recent face to face consultation and their ‘voting with their feet’ (i.e. the pattern of Planning applications/appeals for private sites) • the assessment of absolute and mitigable Planning policy/site-specific constraints, through the site selection methodology • guidance in the Circular and ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites 2015’47 48, (‘the Guide’).

As part of the GTAA the Gypsy & Traveller communities did not express a preference for a particular size or configuration of site, but the GTAA is right in concluding that providing even one additional site would, obviously, provide a wider level of choice. On this basis, providing three new sites of different sizes in different locations will considerably widen that choice. The configuration of the sites will be developed in accordance with the Guide and in consultation with the Gypsy & Traveller communities at the site design stage.

Colleagues from the Council’s Housing and Economy Department conducted face to face consultation with the residents of the existing Council site in May 2018 which revealed the following preferences with regard to new sites:

• Location • Access to services (particularly schools, hospital/GP and local shopping) • Llay appeared to be a good location due to access to Wrexham • Brymbo was a good location due to its proximity to the exiting Council site • Hanmer was not the preferred location for some (due to the distance to schools and health care), but liked by one family • The existing Council site remained a good location for some

• Design • Opposition to pitches being allocated to ‘outsiders’ (Gypsy & Traveller families with no local connection) • On-site parking to ensure better flow of traffic • An uncongested access • A playground for children • Opposition to the use of CCTV

47 https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-05/planning-for-gypsy-traveller-and-showpeople-sites-wgc- 0052018.pdf 48 https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-03/designing-gypsy-and-traveller-sites.pdf 32

Work by Housing officers to reduce the number of pitches on the Council-owned site to improve fire safety and the quality of life of the residents (in accordance with the Guide) shows that it has been occupied by 13 families (with two vacancies) for an extended period of time indicating that such numbers can be compatible on a site where residents share family/social connections. One of the families reported that they are quitting 2 pitches to move to a private site with 4 pitches to accommodate household formation by future generations, showing, anecdotally, the size and configuration of private site that is often sought.

The number of pitches applied for on privately owned land as Planning applications is a reasonable proxy for the size and configuration of sites that Gypsies & Travellers would prefer to live on, though this may be constrained by what is available, developable and affordable (e.g. in one case an application was made for 6 pitches, but approval was given for 4 because of highway constraints). Though the number of cases is small, they show that the ‘preferred’ number of pitches is likely to be between 4 and 7.

While the Council would like to meet the aspirations of the Gypsy & Traveller community, Paragraph 3.17 of the Guide states: ‘…the preferences of community members should be included in the assessment process. However, LAs are not expected to always provide sites in locations which mirror these aspirations. It is recognised that other factors such as availability of land, site sustainability and achievability of planning permission will be more significant matters to consider’. At the same time, the Guide suggests ways of accommodating up to 20 pitches from different groups/communities on a single site (see below).

Number of Sites The number of sites that the Council needs to provide to meet the need for 17 (or even 18) pitches depends party on the needs and aspirations of the Gypsy and Traveller communities, as far as these can be met as described above, and partly on the availability and efficiency of providing and managing such sites.

Providing a single site of 17 pitches would meet the need, accord with the WG Guide by not exceeding 20 pitches, and provide a level of choice, given that, as stated in Paragraph 3.8 of the Guide, a tree-branch layout can accommodate two different groups or communities on the same site, and because, with the exiting Council site, there would be two public sites in the County Borough. The GTAA identified that providing even one new site would provide residents with a degree of choice as to where to live and with whom. Of the three sites currently proposed to be allocated only Llay could readily accommodate 17 (or even 18) pitches.

At the other extreme, providing 17 sites of 1 pitch each would also meet the need, but would not reflect the aspirations of Gypsy & Traveller communities to live near to extended family/social groups (as described above), be a sustainable form of development or financially viable to develop and manage.

The Council considers that the approach it has taken in allocating three sites is a reasonable one as it provides for the identified need while also offering a high degree of choice to residents as to location and number of pitches on a site to meet their varied needs/aspirations. However, the Council has previously expressed the view that of the three sites, Llay is the most easily delivered and sustainable followed by Brymbo and then Hanmer.

33

The layouts of the sites will be determined through consultation with prospective residents and in accordance with the Guide at the detailed design stage

Bullet Points 4 & 6 - Site Size In 2017, the Council discounted sites that were less than 0.5Ha in size in Stage 1 of the selection process. Neither the Circular nor the Guide state precisely how large a site should be, but Paragraph 3.2 of the Guide makes clear that it should have 20 or fewer pitches, while Paragraphs 3.1 and 4.8 imply that 20 or fewer pitches constitutes a ‘smaller’ site. The WG capital grant scheme is based on 15 pitches.

Working from pitch size up, Paragraphs 3.36 - 3.52 of the Guide are clear about what a pitch should contain and what separation distances should be maintained around and between caravans/buildings, and therefore how large a pitch should be. They are also clear about what else should be provided on a site (a site being more than the sum of its pitches). Based on these dimensions, a pitch needs a minimum area of 0.05Ha and a site of more than one pitch needs additional space for access roads, turning areas, landscaping, incidental open space and perhaps a play space, and this need increases with the number of pitches. Though the Circular and Guide are not specific about how this should be translated into minimum site sizes, the most likely permutations for meeting the identified need in Wrexham are as shown in the table below:

Minimum area for Additional minimum area Total minimum the pitches alone for roads, landscaping, etc site area (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) 1 site of 17 pitches 0.85 0.10 0.95 2 sites of 9 pitches 0.45 0.10 0.55 3 sites of 6 pitches 0.30 0.05 0.35 4 sites of 5 pitches 0.25 0.05 0.30

The Council could provide sites which meet these minimum requirements only, but considers that this would amount to ‘shoehorning’ residents into sites when a more spacious arrangement would be desirable for their safety, health and wellbeing, as evidenced by the need to reduce the number of pitches on the Council-owned site. In this respect, the current Council-owned site has an area of 0.67Ha including the access road, but excluding the surrounding trees belt or a play area and it is being reduced to 9 pitches to meet the requirements of the Guide. For these reasons, the Council remains strongly of the view that 0.5Ha is a reasonable minimum size of site.

In response to the Inspectors’ letter/note, and anticipating what the Inspectors may be asking it to do, the Council has reviewed those sites excluded at Stage 1 because of size. Some 62 sites with areas of between 0.25 and 0.5Ha were discounted and of these, 14 are under 0.3Ha and the Council would argue that these are far too small to be considered. Of the remaining 48 sites, the site selection summary, EBH07, explains why they would have been excluded under Stages 2 and 3, had they not already been excluded because of size. The vast majority would have been excluded because they are small playgrounds or areas of POS, but with additional principal reasons including loss of woodland and TPO trees (10 sites), lack of access (8 sites), the sites already being developed/in use, such as for offices (6 sites), no longer being in Council ownership (3 sites), C2 flood zones (2 sites) and loss of community buildings, such as a scout hut (2 sites). Only one site would have been excluded because of Green Barrier alone (Site 298) and this is unsuitable because it can only be accessed through a private site.

34

Bullet Points 5 - Developable area Appendix 7 shows that developable area was a criterion considered for sites that passed Stages 1 to 3 of the selection process (see field ‘Assessment’ and cell ‘Approximate Developable Area’ at the bottom of the template). The Council considers that its review of the sites between 0.3 and 0.5Ha, described above, deals with any concern that sites marginally below 0.5Ha should have been considered and obviates the need to undertake further work to address this issue.

Bullet Point 7 - ‘The 26 Sites Remaining’ The 26 sites remaining at Stage 3 are identified in Appendices 4 and 5 of BP06. The appendices include the 2 sites in Llay that were added, making 28 sites in total. The ‘green’, ‘red’ and ‘amber’ categorisation is explained in in Paragraphs 5.16 - 5.18 of the report to Planning Policy Panel of 20 November 2017: that those sites being identified as ‘green’ are more suitable for allocation than those identified as ‘amber’ and so on, but that all are suitable to some extent.

Although the fact that the 26 sites passed Stage 3 indicated that they have potential to be allocated, it does not follow that they are suitable for allocation. Further site-specific work has demonstrated that they have constraints that cannot be overcome and/or would be too difficult to deliver, other than the ‘green’ Brymbo site. The Council has already submitted evidence to show that the 28 sites were assessed for their suitability for allocation, but, with the exception of Llay and Byrmbo, were deemed to be unsuitable (for the reasons set out in Appendices 4 and 5 of BP06). Hanmer, rated ‘red’, has been taken forward at the request of the Members, to provide a more even spread of pitches across the County Borough than the two sites recommended by officers.

In response to the Inspectors’ letter/note, in an attempt further to demonstrate why 25 of the 28 sites are not suitable, the summary selection process, maps and database describe each site in detail. In summary, as has already been provided in Appendices 4 and 5 of BP06, it is clear that the other sites, from the 26, were not suitable, and as such it was necessary to revisit SLA and Green Wedge sites. This resulted in the two Llay sites being added to the list of 26 with a ‘green’ colour designation.

Bullet Point 8 - Green Wedge Sites The Council would again refer the Inspectors to its response to the hearing session questions (M7.01), in particular the answer to question e). It would also reiterate that all SLA and Green Wedge sites were reassessed on their merits in accordance with the methodology, as shown in detail in Sections 5 and 7 of Appendix 4 of the 22nd November 2018 report to the Council.

The Council has had due regard to Paragraph 55 of Circular 005/2018, in that alternatives were assessed prior to looking at Green Wedge sites, but as none of the 26 sites that passed Stage 3 (other than Brymbo and Hanmer) turned out to be suitable for allocation the Council had to consider other, such as those in the Green Wedge (for the avoidance of doubt, both Green Wedge and Special Landscape Area (SLA) sites were reconsidered).

Bullet Point 9 - Consistency in Applying the Criteria As has previously been submitted in evidence (Section 4, Appendix 4 of EX01), Site 320 is not accessible to the general public, being used exclusively by the model airplane club and by HACK for the grazing of horses. The site nominally forms part of a country park, for management purposes, but the other sites identified in Stage 2 of the selection process as being in such parks are integral, accessible parts of the respective parks and were rejected for this reason (along with other matters, as indicated in the table following 35

Paragraph 4.2 of EX01 and as summarised in the table, below). This does not call into question the consistency of the assessment process; all sites in country and town parks that are accessible to the general public have been ruled out.

Site Assessment Conclusions Ref. 057 Fails stage 2 - Alyn Waters Country Park and more than half a local Wildlife site 069 2017 - Fails Stage 1 - less than minimum size. 2014 - Fails Stage 2 - POS and Acton Country Park 205 Fails Stage 2 - Bellevue Park and contains various areas of POS 210 Fails Stage 2 - Acton Country Park 294 2017 - No longer SLA but majority is Ty Mawr Country Park, AONB and Wildlife Site. The remainder is POS 2014 - Fails Stage 2 - SLA, with majority Ty Mawr Country Park, AONB and Wildlife Site. The remainder is POS 321 Fails Stage 2 - Part C2 flood, wildlife site and Alyn Waters Country Park 322 Fails Stage 2 - Wildlife site and Alyn Waters Country Park 363 2017 - Fails Stage 1 - Moss Valley Country Park. No longer Green Barrier 2014 - Fails Stage 2 - Green Barrier, 40% wildlife site 364 Fails Stage 2 - Wildlife site and Alyn Waters Country Park 365 Fails Stage 2 - Wildlife site and Alyn Waters Country Park 415 Fails Stage 2 - Alyn Waters Country Park 416 Fails Stage 2 - Alyn Waters Country park with nearly half a local wildlife site. There is also an area of POS to the north east corner.

Bullet Point 10 - Use and Weighting of the Criteria The Council does not believe that it is possible to apply a rigid, supposedly scientific (yet, in fact, pseudo-scientific), approach to the weighting of all of the criteria, one against another. On what basis, for example, would one weigh a flat site against encroachment on a SSSI or impact on a SLA against that on a Conservation Area?

While WG guidance, ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites 2015’ (‘the Guide’), does not have the status of the Circular, the Circular refers to the need for Councils to have regard to it and it is also taken into account when an application is made to WG for capital funding. The criteria used by the Council accord with the ‘themes’ that Paragraph 3.22 of the Guide says Councils should consider, other than including reference to a country park.

In response to the Inspectors’ continuing concerns, the Council has published the database record (EBH07a & 7b) for each site which formed the basis for the summaries included in BP06. This clearly shows that each site has been assessed consistently and transparently, addressing the sequential test early on in the process, being logical and realistic in relation to assumptions around site size to accommodate the number of pitches that reflects the aspirations of the community whilst also presenting the best option for site management for the Council in the future. The approach taken to rule out sites on the basis of absolute (Stage 2) and mitigable (Stage 3) Planning constraints and to assess them for their proximity to services is sound.

As has previously been stated, there is no set guidance as to how to undertake a site assessment for the purposes of allocating Gypsy and Traveller sites. The Council has used the guidance available (circulars, national planning policy and the WG guide) and common Planning consideration in a logical and consistent manner. Paragraph 3.22 of the Guide encourages Councils to follow ‘the ‘line of best fit’ when assessing potential sites. It

36 may be that none of the potential sites can completely satisfy the guidance in this document’.

How the Stage 3 assessment was undertaken As was explained at the Matter 7 hearing session, the Council has a database of sites that was used to undertake the assessment and this has now been published (EBH07a). Paragraph 5.17 of BP06 explains that 75 sites remained after Stage 2 to be assessed against Stage 3 criteria (constraints that might be mitigable). A desk top study was undertaken to identify any constraints, as set out in Table 2 of BP06. Depending on the constraints identified, relevant consultations took place with internal and external specialists (Highway colleagues were consulted on all of the sites). Once the consultation responses had been received, the detailed responses were entered into the database and a planning balance/ judgement made against the material Planning considerations for each site. This process was undertaken by the policy officers of the Council and recorded in the conclusions section of the database.

How the criteria were applied If a site had any constraints identified in Table 2 of BP06, the relevant constraint was ticked in the database template (Appendix 7) and any notes on the constraint included in the database. The views of specialist consultees were sought on each site and the nature of the responses determined how the sites were taken forward. If there were constraints that could not be mitigated, the site was not taken forward, but if there were constraints which could potentially be mitigated, subject to further assessment at Planning application stage, they moved on to Stage 4.

By way of example, if a site is subject to a woodland TPO covering the whole site, and it is also partially a local wildlife site then the woodland TPO constraint alone means that it is not suitable for development, regardless of whether the impact on the local wildlife site could be mitigated and, perhaps, a suitable means of access established. If, however, a site has individual TPO trees and is partially in a local wildlife site, with suitable access, then the site would not be ruled out because careful design and layout could mitigate the impact on such site features. Similarly, a site’s history of contamination was not a reason in itself to rule it out. Contamination can be mitigated, but for the purpose of making allocations in the Plan, a full site contamination investigation would not be justified; it can be dealt with at the Planning application stage. Had the Council done this for each site in Stage 3, it would have been more akin to the submission of Planning applications on all of the sites and would have been inappropriate in terms of cost and disproportionate in terms of establishing the principle of an allocation.

The cumulative balance of constraints and potential for their mitigation has been key in the application of criteria at this stage of the process, as shown by the database.

The weight given to differing factors This has been discussed in answer to the previous questions, but depending on the nature of the constraints they were considered in the Planning balance, as would any material Planning consideration in a Planning application or appeal, to support a judgement as to the suitability or otherwise of the sites. For example, Site 15 has no suitable means of access and has been ruled out. Oher sites where access is possible, but where there may have been contaminated land issues have been taken forward as this can potentially be mitigated.

37

Account taken of potential for mitigation Where site constraints do not rule out a site at Stage 3 (e.g. Site 15, no access), the potential for mitigation has been taken into account in the assessment at this stage. As was mentioned above in relation to contaminated land, mitigation has also been considered in relation to ecological constraints and landscape impact (tree and hedgerow planting along boundaries where necessary), depending on the constraints associated with each site. Again, the Council maintains that while the ability of sites to be mitigated is a reasonable part of the assessment at this stage, undertaking detailed site investigations should be dealt with at the Planning application stage. This is the approach that is taken to housing and other allocations yet it would appear that the Council is being asked take a different approach to Gypsy and Traveller sites, which would not be consistent.

Stage 4 As can be seen from Appendix 7, Stage 4 involved looking at the proximity of sites to services. This was weighted for each site, with 1 point for meeting the specified criterion and 0 points for not. This was applied consistently for each site as can be seen in the site selection summary and the database. The Council accepts that the summaries and descriptions provided in the background paper are brief and that the language may give the impression of inconsistency, but the selection summary and full database demonstrate the consistent application of the criteria at this stage.

6.6 Green, Amber Red Sites 2014/15 to 2017 The Council has provided evidence on the colour-coded categorisation in its response to Bullet Point 7, above, but addresses the sites referred to, below:

Site 15 (Kingsmill, Wrexham) - the response from Highways at the time of the earlier assessment was: ‘Not possible to construct a suitable access off Kingsmills Road. Access via Ashburn Way/River Close is unsuitable due to inadequate visibility at Ashburn Way/Kingsmills Road junction. The site has no suitable access and as such is not suitable for development, as indicated in the 2017 assessment. However, the identification of the site as green in the Councils response to Action Point 5 is incorrect for the 2014/15 assessment, for which the Council apologises. For clarity, no access was available 2014 or 2017; hence the site is not suitable for allocation.

Site 60 (adjacent to Chirk Hospital, Chirk) - this site was also submitted as a Candidate Site for housing (CHO4CS) and is on the Council’s list of sites that could potentially be put forward for housing (NSP033) in document M3.01R. The part of the site that has been assessed for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation (map in Appendix 4 of the report to Planning Policy Panel, 20 November 2017, PPP26) forms a small part of the Candidate Site, but not part of Site NSP033. The site potentially has contamination issues, but whilst access is possible, it would be via an existing cul de sac to the north of the site (Crogen) and require access over an existing public footpath. There are legal problems with gaining access from this location due to ownership of the land which the footpath crosses, while the hospital has a lease for a car park on a strip of land in the vicinity for another 3-4 years. The site is ‘amber’ as it requires investigation for contamination regardless of the use either as a potential Gypsy and Traveller site or for housing. Similarly to the Site 61, below, the site is in close proximity to a private Gypsy & Traveller site and has potential to come forward for housing, should this be required during the course of the Examination. It is surrounded by houses to the north, west and south west, and whilst it is in a sustainable location, the legal issues in relation to obtaining permission to cross the footpath, the close proximity to another gypsy traveller site, the close proximity to existing housing

38 development and the fact that the site has potential to deliver housing, weighted against the site being taken forward.

Site 61 (Black Park, Chirk) - this is a large site previously assessed in LDP1 and shortlisted as an allocation in 2009. Permission has since been granted on land to the northwest for a visitor centre (P/2010/0568 - 08/03/11) and P/2016/0222 (extension of time for commencement) -08/03/11)) and it has tenancy with 15 years left to run. While the tenancy can be negotiated, at a cost, the proximity of the site to land with permission for a visitor centre raises concerns about compatibility of land uses, which, coupled with the need to negotiate the tenancy means that the site would be difficult to bring forward. It has been categorised as ‘amber’ because the Council believes that the issue of contamination, like the Brymbo site, could be addressed by site-specific investigations at the Planning application stage, but that for the purposes of making an allocation undertaking a full site investigation would be premature; particularly in light of the tenancy and compatibility issues. Additionally, the site lies in close proximity to the recently granted private site for 7 pitches as detailed in the table in the section on unmet need, above and, similarly to Site 60, the close proximity of the site to another Gypsy and Traveller site and the incompatibility of uses with the visitor centre weighed against the site being taken forward.

Site 315 (Hanmer) - this is a large site with high ecological value, but given its size there is potential for mitigation. It forms part of two separate farm holdings, one under a lifetime tenancy and the other under a tenancy until 2029, outside of the Plan period. It is classed as ‘red’ to reflect the complexity of negotiating the end of the tenancies, the ecological constraints, its rural location and concerns from Highways about increases in traffic on Cranberry lane. In accordance with the colour categorisation, the Council feels that, on balance, the cumulative constraints are greater than for Site 61, such as to warrant a ‘red’ classification, albeit that both sites would require tenancy negotiation.

The Council maintains that there is a greater risk to deliverability with negotiating on long term tenancies than complying with a covenant requiring the payment of an overage on the grant of Planning permission for an alternative use. The small cost of satisfying the covenant is identified under the Llay heading, below.

6.7 Inclusion of a Third Site (Hanmer) The Inspectors have already noted that officers recommended the Llay and Brymbo sites only to the Planning Policy Panel, but that Members felt that a wider distribution of sites would better suit the needs of the Gypsy & Traveller communities and allow for better integration into the areas concerned, a view endorsed by the Council when it decided to submit the Plan for Examination. While the designation of the site as ‘red’ meant that it was considered by officers to be less suitable than those rate ‘amber’ or ‘green’, it was legitimate for Members to choose to include it; the colour-coding being a matter of judgement. The Council maintain that this site could deliver pitches to meet the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community in a way that would give residents a wide degree of choice. However if the Inspectors’ view that this site is unsuitable for allocation and that the pitches should be redistributed to the other allocated sites, then they should make this clear in their final report to the Council.

Allocated Sites

Appendix A On a general point, while none of the three allocations is without constraints – there being no ‘ideal’ site anywhere in the County Borough – the lack of an immediate need for accommodation because of recent permissions for private sites means that the Council

39 has time to address the constraints that have been identified, in the normal way – through the site design and Planning applications process.

1. Coedfelin Road (Brymbo)

Land Contamination It is acknowledged that any tanks that remain within the site will need to be filled and capped, which can be achieved when reinforced concrete hardstandings are formed to accommodate the amenity buildings and caravans, etc. Importation of clean soil will be needed only for any additional landscaping, though the site already benefits from a mature hedgerow boundary.

A preliminary risk assessment has been undertaken, but a full site investigation will be required to determine the extent of any potential contamination and its remediation. It is normal practice for this to be undertaken through the Planning application process and if any contamination/structures are found then this can be dealt with at the development/ remediation stage. Again, this is the same approach taken to other housing allocations.

Other sites have been discounted in the selection process on contamination grounds because of the nature of the previous use of the site and the extent and serious nature of potential risk to public health, for example Site 037 ( Woods), which lies in close proximity to a tar pit and Site 220 (Woodwards Rock), which lies on a former landfill site. For the Brymbo site the extent of risk, given its previous use and the remediation involved, is not considered to be so serious or prohibitive as to preclude its development. It is common practise on previously developed land for ground investigation and remediation work to be required and for them to be undertaken through the Planning application process. As the legislation makes provision for this it would be pre-emptive to discount sites of a less serious nature, such as this one. A Council would not resist the principle of development on a site when an opportunity exists to overcome the constraint. The site cannot be discounted on grounds of contamination and the potential cost of remediation as there is every likelihood that the constraint can be overcome, especially as the site is not required immediately as there is no immediate need.

Topography The site will need to be re-profiled to create terracing and level hardstandings, a new access road created and some landscaping undertaken. A sloping site of this nature does not render the site undevelopable. It is not uncommon, for instance, for residential development to be accommodated on steeply slopping sites. The overall site layout and design will be addressed at the detailed Planning stage.

Due to the topography the extent of a potential buffer required by the river for reasons of flooding and ecological mitigation will not be significant or impinge on the developable area. Welsh Water has not indicated a requirement for a buffer around their apparatus, but in any case some separation will be provided by the access road and screening, though not to the extent that it will significantly reduce the developable area.

Sustainability of the location The site lies in close proximity to a Tier 3 settlement which has a range of community facilities. There is a continuous footpath from the site entrance into Brymbo and the minor section of highway without a footway lies within the settlement limit and accounts for approximately 5% of its total length. Within Brymbo, as in many villages in the area, it is not uncommon to have sections of highway without footpaths; in fact this is a characteristic feature of settlements. Similar concerns were raised at a recent appeal for the provision of

40 two Gypsy and Traveller pitches at Land west of , Fennant Road, (APP/H6955/A/16/3161155). Fennant Road is almost completely devoid of footpaths, but the Inspector did not accept that the safety of pedestrians was compromised by this.

Highways The Highway Authority raises no objections. Visibility splays in both directions are in accordance with national guidance for a 30mph speed limit. The Inspectors refer to speed surveys which indicate that vehicles are travelling at speeds in excess of 30mph and consequently that the sightlines from the preferred access cannot be achieved and a safe access undeliverable, but the site lies within a 30mph speed limit where it is the responsibility of the driver to travel at a speed suited to the conditions and it would be inappropriate to assess visibility based upon the illegal actions of drivers. This, again, was the approach taken in the recent appeal.

In any event, traffic calming measures could be introduced to reduce traffic speeds from the west by introducing a build out at the bottom of the hill, giving priority to vehicles travelling down the hill from Brymbo. This would slow vehicles down as they pass the site entrance. There is also good inter-invisibility between the point of access and vehicles entering the 30mph speed limit due to the difference in land levels. Such an approach, and the inclusion of signage, is supported by the Circular and the Guide.

Whilst the adjacent access is not within the Council’s ownership there is an agreement with Welsh Water to use the access or to achieve the required visibility across it. In this respect, the use of either access by either party requires (and has always required) the agreement of both parties as the visibility splays crosses Council and Welsh Water land.

2. Llay

Covenant This site is the subject of a restrictive covenant (Appendix 10). The covenant was placed on the land when it was transferred to the Council in 1988. The site had previously been part of a large parcel of land that had been the subject to minerals extraction, but which had been restored to grassland before being passed to the Council.

The Council considers that the presence of covenants or other civil restrictions on land is not a material Planning consideration of relevance to the site selection process or a Planning application. However, in response to the Inspector’s letter/note it can confirm that the covenant would not prevent the Council from allocating the site or obtaining a subsequent Planning approval and carrying it out. The operative part of the covenant does not act as a bar to the development of the site, but requires the Council to pay the covenant holder a sum ‘to represent 75% of the increase in the market value of the freehold… consequent on the granting of such planning permission’

In the event that the company concerned still exists, this would be a relatively small sum. The Council would not normally reveal its valuation advice – as this could prejudice any negotiation with the covenant holder – or be expected to do so, but in view of the Inspectors’ continuing concerns about the potential impact of this covenant on the deliverability of the site, the Council feels that it has no choice, but to put its information before the Examination in Public.

The Council obtained two valuations from the District Valuer in March and September 2018. Redacted versions of these are attached as Appendices 11a and b (the redactions relate to personal details of the valuer, etc.). These show that the likely cost of meeting the

41 covenant would be £45,000 for a site with 12 pitches and £64,500 for a site with 19 pitches, and therefore proportionately (and significantly) much lower for the number of pitches proposed on the site in the Plan. However many pitches are provided, this sum represents a modest cost that can be met from within current departmental budgets and will not materially affect the viability of developing the site and therefore its deliverability.

As to the process for satisfying the covenant, the key point is that the payment does not need to be made until Planning permission is granted which gives the Council sufficient time to agree a figure or to go through any arbitration in the unlikely event that that needs to take place. This civil process could be run in parallel with the site design/Planning application process and need not cause any delay. This is especially pertinent given that there is no 5-year need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the County Borough.

Designations (Country Park Status) The Council would reiterate that this site is not an integral part of the Alyn Waters Country Park to which the general public have access. The evidence for this is set out below: • This site is not contiguous with the Country Park, being on the other side of the road • There is no signage on the site, in the vicinity of the site or in the Country Park proper saying it the site is part of the Country Park. In fact the signage in the Park excludes it (see below).

• The essential defining characteristic of a Country Park is public access. The Countryside Act 1968, which provides the statutory basis for the designation of Country Parks, states at Section 6 (1) that the purpose of a Country Park is ‘providing, or improving, opportunities for the enjoyment of the countryside by the public’. In this case: • There is no public access to the site; it being barred by a locked field gate and not having any Public Rights of Way that cross it. In fact, there is less public access to this site than there is to open countryside elsewhere in the County Borough (i.e. areas that do have Public Rights of Way or which are not walled/fenced off). • Permitted use of the site is confined exclusively to the grazing of horses by HACK and use by the model airplane club, both on the basis of a licence, though one of these has expired. 42

• The use of the site for the grazing of horses by a single charity and by a private model airplane club does not make it a Country Park accessible to the general public. • The Council’s management Plan for the Country Park specifically states that this area of land, while in Council ownership, is not open to public access.

If the Inspectors do not accept this argument, but conclude, on the evidence, that the site is an integral part of the Country Park, then the Council would argue that it is a peripheral, disconnected part without general public access and that its loss would not harm the function of the Country Park proper and is justified to meet the essential need for a Gypsy and Traveller site in the County Borough, a statutory duty. It is worth remembering that the Council has committed to relocating the two low-intensity uses of the site to other locations in its portfolio, subject to the necessary licences

As stated above, the selection process was consistent in that the Council excluded sites on Country Parks where they are accessible to the general public.

3. Land off A525 (Hanmer)

Sustainability of the location The Council would agree that the site is more isolated than the proposed allocations in Brymbo and Llay. However, Circular 005/2018 does not discount sites in the countryside away from existing settlements, but states that the Council should first consider sustainable locations within or adjacent to existing settlement boundaries with access to local services. It states that sites in the countryside, away from existing settlements, can be considered if there is a lack of suitable sustainable locations within or adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and this has been demonstrated through the site selection process. Bullet pint 1 of Paragraph 3.22 of the Guide states: Although access to public transport would be ideal, it may be unrealistic in close proximity to the site in rural areas. Bullet pint 3 states `Local services - ideally located within reasonable distance from education settings, health services and shops. If a site is located, or is going to be located, in a rural area this will not be achievable in many instances. Paragraph 3.27 states: ‘The site should be connected to the local community by means of a footpath, except where a rural location makes this impossible’.

The site lies within 1km of Hanmer and approximately 8km of Whitchurch. There is a bus service which runs along the A525. Whilst there are no footways or a bus stop directly next to the site there is a bus stop in Hanmer which can be accessed safely on foot via Mill Lane which is lightly trafficked. Given the nomadic life style of Gypsy and Travellers they are arguably less reliant on public transport, with a higher dependency on their own vehicles. This is recognised in Circular 005/2018 which states that “over rigid application of national or development management policies that seek a reduction in car travel in order to block proposals for any Gypsy and Traveller site in a countryside location would be inappropriate”.

Visual Impact The site is visually exposed when travelling east along the A525, but this can be significantly reduced with additional landscaping and by allowing the existing hedgerow along the A525 to grow in height. Existing mature trees along the watercourse provide screening from the Bryn Rossett Bank/A525 Junction. The topography of the surroundings restricts views from the north and further planting/ landscaping would mitigate any impact along the site frontage. The extent of any hedgerow removal would be the minimum required to meet visibility requirements and its loss would be compensated by reinstatement of an indigenous hedge behind the visibility splay achieved through a

43

Planning condition. The new hedge and supplementary planting would mitigate the visual impact.

Similarly, there is scope within the site to provide a substantial buffer between the pitches and Sands Cottage. New development within the open countryside will inevitably have some impact, but the size of the site in relation to the number of pitches proposed would allow for extensive landscaping which should assimilate the development into the area. The extent of the development in relation to the total site area has previously been evidenced by the Council. Similarities can be made with the existing Gypsy and Traveller site on Ruthin Road which was once visually exposed and is now well screened through appropriate planting.

Flooding Only a very small percentage of the site lies within a C2 flood zone. This is effectively a corridor varying in width from 8m to 20m along the watercourse on the site boundary. The Council have previously submitted evidenced that there is no historic flooding on the site or within the immediate vicinity. TAN15 advocates a precautionary approach and describes a presumption against any form of highly vulnerable development within the C2 zone, but in this case the affected area is primarily taken up by mature vegetation which would be retained for screening purposes. A buffer of varying widths to reflect the C2 zone would not result in a significant incursion into the site or in a layout too dissimilar to the illustrative one previously presented by the Council. There is sufficient space in the site to locate the pitches away from any area of risk.

Ecology There are otters and newts within the vicinity of the site, utilising boundary features for foraging and ‘commuting’. There are no features on site which either species use for breeding purposes; all of the ecological interest lies on the site boundaries. Any effect on otters can be mitigated by retaining a fenced and planted buffer along the watercourse, which would normally be 12 - 15m wide and have a dual function as landscaping. This buffer broadly corresponds with the section of the site taken up by the C2 zone.

Newts commonly breed within field ponds in the area. They utilise existing hedgerows, woodlands and rough grassland for feeding, ‘commuting’ and hibernating. The existing habitat on site is sub optimal and improvements to boundary hedges, leaving patches of scrub in field corners and the additional of a small pond and would improve the value and permeability of the site without significantly reducing the developable area. The site is sufficiently large to accommodate these.

Site Layout The illustrative layout for the site, as previously submitted in evidence by the Council, shows that the nearest pitches will be some distance from Sands Cottage. There are opportunities to re-contour the site to create a more level central area with some minor cut and fill. Surplus material could be used to provide landscaped bunding to enclose the site to the west and screen it from Sands Cottage. The bunding would be profiled in a way that reflects the natural undulating topography of the area. The extent of the flooding and ecology constraints should not significantly impact upon the site layout. The layout may need to take a more elongated form, but not to the extent that it would involve direct inter-visibility between the two uses.

Consideration of the impact on the living conditions of residents would be considered through the Planning application process. The Council’s adopted Local Planning Guidance Note 21 ‘Space Around Dwellings’, sets out guidelines to ensure that new development

44 protects residential amenity. Where two habitable rooms face each other such that direct overlooking is possible, windows should be 22m apart. These standards apply on flat ground and it is assumed that the caravans would be on an equal level with Sands Cottage. The guidance makes provision to increase the separation distance on sloping ground by 1m by every 1/2m difference in height. Even with a more elongated site layout these requirements can comfortably be achieved. The extent of separation can be further enhanced by sensitive positioning and orientation of caravans together with minor re- contouring and planting. This will significantly reduce the impact and ensure that there is no adverse impact upon the living conditions of residents in Sands Cottage.

Highways The proposed allocation does not involve the formation of a new access, but improvements to an existing one. Despite the shortfall in visibility based upon submitted speed surveys there would be significant improvements in visibility over and above the current situation. It should also be acknowledged that the existing access is substandard and there is the potential for it to be used more intensely through agricultural use. This would involve slower moving large agricultural vehicles entering and leaving the site. Whilst large vehicles and touring caravans would enter and leave the site in connection with the proposed use this would be less frequent and the majority of traffic generated by the development would be cars or vans.

The Inspectors refer to the Boston Transport Planning study which shows the 85th%ile off peak recorded speeds as exceeding the speed limit, thereby requiring sight stopping distances (SSD) in the order of 120m. Concerns remain that the required visibility cannot be achieved and that a safe access cannot be achieved. As with the Brymbo allocation, the Council contend that it would be inappropriate to assess the visibility required based upon illegal actions of drivers. It is, however, acknowledged that Bryn Rossett Bank has an unrestricted speed limit and vehicles can theoretically travel on it at up to 60mph, but it is a Class C highway, similar in character to numerous country lanes which are also unrestricted. Many of these roads, Bryn Rossett Bank included, are substandard with varying road widths and poor alignment and lack footpaths. Drivers have a responsibility to drive at a speed which reflects these conditions. The initial assessment undertaken by the Highway Authority based upon the status and condition of the road concluded that a safe and responsible speed reflecting these conditions would be in the region of 30mph. Adequate visibility can be achieved to meet this requirement.

The Council do not dispute the results of the speed survey, but it would suggest that some drivers are travelling at a speed which is not commensurate with the conditions of the road in this location. Some form of traffic calming could therefore be justified to reduce speeds to a safe and acceptable level. This approach, and the introduction of appropriate signage, accords with the Circular and the Guide.

The Council accept that the required visibility splays cannot be achieved along the site frontage, but would contend that the net improvement to the existing access off-sets that shortfall. Further measures could be introduced to slow traffic down within the highway which would address an existing highway safety issue. The Council therefore maintain that a safe access can be provided to serve the site.

45

Questions/Further Information

i. Is the Council in agreement that the unmet need over the Plan period is 18 pitches? No - the Council believes that the unmet need is 17. If the Inspectors believe that the requirement should be 18 then the Council would be grateful for their guidance/ direction, though the difference will not materially impact on the allocation of sites. ii. Are the principles behind the site selection process logical and sound?

Yes - the Council maintains that the principles behind the site selection process are logical and sound. Appendix 7 demonstrates that the sequential approach to site selection has been considered from the outset. The 0.5Ha minimum site size criterion was, and remains, appropriate in the context of the number of pitches required as is set out earlier in this report. The process is consistent with the approach taken by other Councils and has been accepted by the Inspectorate in those instances (e.g. Swansea) and the criteria used are those used by the Inspectorate in determining appeals for individual sites. Pages 38 to 41 of this report, above, explain how the site selection methodology was implemented and that decisions were made consistently, particularly in relation to the concerns raised about Stages 3 and 4. Further evidence to demonstrate this is contained in the site selectin summary and database.

ii. Consideration should be given to re-visiting the site selection process based on revised criteria. The Council considers that it has used the correct criteria for the reasons already stated. If the Inspectors believe that the four-stage process should be reordered, perhaps to give greater weight to proximity to services (Stage 4) and lesser weight to what the Council has described as absolute or mitigable Planning constraints (Stages 2 and 3) in favour of sites within or adjacent to settlement boundaries; that individual criteria should be moved from one stage to another to give them greater or lesser weight; or that individual criteria should be excluded altogether and other new ones introduced, then the Council would be grateful for such guidance/direction.

iii. The assessment process should be more transparent and consistent, with decisions on sites to be taken forward based on the emerging evidence as to suitability and deliverability.

The Council maintains that the selection process had these qualities as shown in the site selection summary and database, but as summarised below:

• Transparent - the Council has been transparent in the assessment of the sites, with the answers to the questions above and the publication of the database providing further transparency. It would ask the Inspectors to acknowledge that the selection of sites for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation is regrettably a highly controversial process and it defends the process of allowing Members the space and time to consider a large number of sites in private before consulting the public widely on the proposals. Summaries of the site selection process have been provided as part of Deposit Plan consultation and the Council has provided further clarity on the sites at each step of the process since the Plan was placed on Deposit in this report. As was stated in the Matter 7 hearing, the site assessment has used a

46

database to record and assess the suitability of sites, something that the Council have now made available

• Consistent - the assessment has been undertaken consistently for each site as demonstrated in the further evidence provided with this report (the assessment template (Appendix 7), the site selection summary and the whole database). As with all planning decisions, each site has been assessed on its merits and the material Planning considerations considered in the Planning balance. The evidence shows that this is has been done consistently in terms of applying site constraints, assessing the sites in each stage of the site assessment and balancing the planning merits of each site to narrow down the sites most appropriate for allocation. As has previously been stated, there is no set guidance or methodology for assessing such sites; the Council has made use of national policy and guidance and good Planning practice to come up with a set of criteria to undertake the site selection, not dissimilar to how other Councils and the Inspectorate have approached such tasks and Planning appeals respectively.

• Suitability - the sites identified are suitable for allocation; they have been assessed in a consistent manner on their Planning merits and any constraints that remain are able to be mitigated at the Planning application stage, where required.

• Deliverability – there are no major obstacles to the delivery of these sites during the Plan period. Of course, their deliverability is also dependent on their successful allocation in the Plan and securing Planning permission. The Council intends to submit a Planning application on the Llay site as soon as the Plan is adopted and maintains that the covenant – which is not a material Planning consideration – can readily be dealt with in parallel with that process, so as not to cause any delay. It is likely that the Brymbo site will be brought forward following the Llay site and the Council will continue to monitor any private sites that come forward in the meantime before deciding when to start the Hanmer site.

CONCLUSION ON GYPSY AND TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION As has been shown by the evidence, there is no ideal, constraint-free site in the County Borough – far from it – and the Council, and now the Inspectors, have a hard choice to make. As there is no immediate need, the Council has time to address the constraints that exist on the allocated sites and deliver them during the Plan period and any further delay to find a better site is unlikely to bear any fruit.

The Council would suggest including additional detailed, site-specific monitoring indicators in the Monitoring Framework with specific delivery/process criteria (e.g. dealing with the constraints, submitted the Planning application, obtaining grant funding) to ensure progress, and that a lack of progress, say by 2024/25, could trigger consideration of reviewing the Plan.

If this approach if not supported and none of the allocated sites is considered acceptable then the Council would ask the Inspectors to accept that despite many years of searching, the Council is unable to meet the residual need through specific site allocations in the Plan and must rely, instead, on the criteria-based policy, an approach acknowledged as a possibility in Paragraph 48 of the Circular.

47

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS In responding to the Inspectors’ post-hearing letter/note, the Council has tried to set out existing and new evidence to support the adoption of the Plan as currently set out.

Housing The Council reiterates its position that the overall housing requirement is appropriate and sound and that increasing it above the 94 units required to discount the 2-year windfall allowance would not be sustainability or deliverable, and therefore unsound. Any additional dwellings would need to be allocated on sites on the reserve list, but strictly in a sequential way, starting with KSS1 (after Junction 4 has been upgraded) and Tier 2 or Tier 3 sites. There is no need or justification for an extension of the Brymbo development into that part of the ‘wider area’ located in the open countryside, either by allocation or an extension of the settlement boundary.

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation After many years looking, the Council has exhausted the list of potential private and public sites for the allocation of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and feels that any further reassessment would be unnecessary and prove fruitless. However, it is prepared to undertake such further work as the Inspectors think necessary (and potentially fruitful) to ensure that the Plan can be adopted. The absence of an up to date Plan is subjecting the County Borough to speculative development and ‘Planning by Appeal’ and the adoption of the Plan is essential to bring about proper plan-led development for the benefit of the people of Wrexham. The Council would be grateful for what guidance or direction the Inspectors can give to enable this to happen.

APPENDICES 1. Welsh Government (Trunk Road Agency) Direction in respect of Brymbo 2. Candidate Sites Assessment template 3. Site Submissions Review 4. Brymbo ‘wider area’ plan 5. Brymbo Candidate Site histories 6. Brymbo photographs 7. Gypsy and Traveller Sites Assessment template 8. Note attached to Call for Sites form 9. Guidance note of Call for Sites form 10. Covenant affecting the Llay site 11. DVS valuations in respect of the Llay site

48