LEWES PHOENIX RISING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE LEWES DISTRICT JOINT CORE STRATEGY – ISSUE 5 JANUARY 2015
GOLDFINCH COMMUNITY DEVELOPER, Old Foundry Workshops, 32, North St, Lewes BN7 2PH 0
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ISSUE 5 (EMERGING POLICY SP3) For: Lewes Phoenix Rising Ltd JANUARY 2015 Summary 1. These representations have been prepared by Goldfinch Community Developer on behalf of Lewes Phoenix Rising Ltd. They refer to policy SP3 in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) prepared by Lewes District Council and the South Downs National Park Authority. 2. Lewes Phoenix Rising has concluded that the policy as currently drafted is not sound. 3. It is not positively prepared, as it fails to demonstrate how it meets objectively assessed need for affordable employment space. 4. It is not justified, as it fails to provide proportionate evidence to support its findings and there is a reasonable alternative that has not been considered. 5. It is not effective, given the failure of the current landowners to bring forward a viable planning application based on SP3. 6. It is not consistent with National Policy, failing to promote the integration of the cultural heritage, local distinctiveness, intrinsic character and the identity of the town of Lewes. 7. It is an acknowledged fact that Lewes is a unique town in many ways, a creative working town with deep cultural roots. The implementation of SP3 will potentially undermine the future of the town; removing affordable workspace, failing to create the genuinely affordable homes that the town needs, replacing a vibrant and creative engine-room at the heart of the town with a sterile development that fails to live up to the cultural heritage and local distinctiveness that make Lewes a great place. 8. For these reasons, Lewes Phoenix Rising has proposed an alternative to SP3 contained in our representations of July 2014 which we believe will preserve the best of Lewes and create a new development of which the Council and National Park can be proud. Introduction 9. Lewes Phoenix Rising Ltd (LPR) is a community development company that has developed a masterplan for the Phoenix Estate (that part of the SP3 area to the north of the Phoenix Causeway, appendix page 5) in response to the needs of the town of Lewes. 10. This paper sets out our analysis of the proposals in SP3 in terms of their soundness, based on our analysis of their economic, social and environmental impacts and building on our earlier representations (July 2014).
1
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
Economic Impact SP3 proposed policy 11. Policy SP3 provides for interalia between 4,000 and 5,000 sqm of B1a office floor space, retail floorspace (mostly for comparison goods) and a hotel. It requires a masterplan to indicate the exact development mix based on the uses set out in the policy that will be “developed in consultation with residents, business and community groups on site and in the local area”, (p54, JCS). 12. Paragraphs 6.59 to 6.64 of SP3 then go on to justify the mix of uses, including those that contribute to the local economy (retail and employment space). LPR position 13. One of the 12 planning principles set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires plans to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. 14. In our earlier representations we noted that there is already a thriving business community on the site, providing 453 jobs in 50 businesses in over 14,000 sqm of existing buildings mostly in use classes B1, studios and light industry. These businesses provide employment, training, community services and a range of facilities for young people. This is the type of space for which there is a demand in this part of the town. 15. The proposal in SP3 to provide 4,000 – 5,000 sqm B1a office floor space does not in our view meet the objectively assessed requirements for the type of employment space required in the town of Lewes. The masterplan, adopted by Lewes District Council in April 2014, indicates that 2,000 sqm of B1 and D2 floorspace will be provided in the North Street Quarter but gives no definite indication of the likely uses. This does not reflect the requirements for the “exact development mix” referred to on page 54 of the JCS. 16. Should SP3 be implemented a large proportion of the existing jobs, businesses and services would be lost. Additional evidence 17. Contrary to SP3, there is no evidence that the masterplan was developed in consultation with business and community groups on site. We know from our July 2014 survey (see appendix page 1) that 75% of the existing businesses have not been consulted on relocation in spite of the commitment in SP3 to do so (paragraph 6.63, JCS) and of the remaining 25% who have had discussions only two businesses have confirmed that they can afford to relocate. 18. In November 2014 we conducted an additional survey of some of the site users, in conjunction with a consultancy, Making Good, employed by Santon, to understand the workspace requirements of the existing businesses and their interconnections (see appendix pp 2-4). 2
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
19. 55 of the 59 respondents said that it would be problematic or very problematic to their business if they had to move off the Phoenix Estate. 48 respondents said that low rent was one of the three most important factors in their choosing to locate on the Phoenix Estate. 20. We know from anecdotal evidence that most of the current businesses are paying between £5 and £10 psf for their space. A study commissioned by Santon from the Lewes Community Land Trust prepared in February 2014 showed that the B1 space, which it is proposed to provide in new buildings, would cost £15psf to rent in order to generate a viable economic model (North Street Quarter Stage 1 Business Plan, Lewes Community Land Trust). 21. Since April 2014, in spite of requests for further information about the precise content of the proposed development, none has been forthcoming. 22. In the light of the absence of detail from the landowners, Lewes Phoenix Rising has developed an alternative masterplan (which can be seen at www.lewesphoenixrising.com) which shows amongst other things that: the existing buildings in Phoenix Place (the old foundry buildings, appendix page 6) can be economically retained in use; it is possible to provide 6,900 sqm of employment space of the type required in these buildings without reducing the residential development on the site from the 390 units contained in SP3; and this can be done through a flood-resilient scheme without the need for expensive and largely ineffective flood defences. 23. The evidence of our survey, masterplan and of the work done by Santon to find alternative economic uses for the site leads to the following conclusions: contrary to paragraph 6.52 of the JCS, our survey shows that the site is able to meet the needs of current businesses, and our physical survey of the existing foundry buildings shows that improvements to the existing buildings would generate significant economic benefits; our survey of the buildings shows that they are not predominantly dating from the 1950s and 1960s, but many of them have historic interest as well as further use value; contrary to paragraph 6.59 of the JCS there is no evidence that there is a qualitative need for comparison retail as the developer has failed to attract a single provider; we agree with the assertion in paragraph 6.61 that employment provision is a key consideration but our survey challenges the assertion that there is no quantitative need for additional employment floorspace; our survey provides evidence to support the assertion in paragraph 6.62 that caution should be exercised when considering the loss of any existing employment land to alternative uses, and we agree that the incorporation of light industry would be acceptable within the redevelopment of the site and this should be included in the policy; and our evidence shows that the aspiration referred to in paragraph 6.63 to relocate businesses to Malling Brooks has not in large part been acted on and there is no
3
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
indication that such relocation would be affordable to the majority of existing businesses on the site. 24. We argue that the economic impact of the implementation of SP3 will be to put at risk over 50 businesses, employing in the region of 450 people, with no certainty of reprovision of suitable workspace on the site. Social Impact SP3 proposed policy 25. SP3 has little to say about the social impact of its delivery. The only reference to social impact comes in paragraph 6.65 with reference to the difficulties that Lewes District Council is having in finding sufficient sites to meet its future housing need. This is then used as the basis for identifying the site considered by SP3 as suitable for a significant quantum of housing, presumably using the exception test with respect to building on land at risk of flooding. 26. SP3 makes no reference to the social impact of removing existing uses from the site. LPR position 27. We do not believe that the sequential and exception tests required by the JCS core policy 12 have been properly applied in this case. 28. We believe that the evidence points towards a policy which promotes mixed use, retaining extensive employment uses on the site, with residential development to complement the employment uses and to ensure viability of the development. 29. LDC should review its site allocations elsewhere to release land currently allocated for employment uses (which would be provided on the Phoenix Estate) for residential use, given its current lack of a full five year land supply. Additional evidence 30. The November survey looked at the interconnections between the existing businesses and the rest of Lewes (appendix pp 2-4). The survey shows that a large majority of the existing businesses rely on linkages both within the Phoenix Estate and with the town of Lewes. For instance, borrowing equipment, supplier and client relationships, exchange of knowledge and sharing facilities are all important to the day to day operation of most of the businesses. 31. The survey also shows that current site users would value the opportunity to rent cheap residential accommodation on site, thus eliminating their journey to work. This is consistent with LDC’s stated aim of reducing the need for out-commuting, as well as reducing car journeys, a key requirement in Lewes which is already suffering from the impact of road congestion.
4
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
32. Further evidence of the importance of the existing activities on the site is provided in Santon’s Audit of Cultural Infrastructure in Lewes (prepared by Marshall Nairne Ltd October 2013). 33. Recommendation 4 of the report states that: “Attempts should be made to retain the creative essence that has developed in the North Street Quarter, where this is economically viable and any proposals for providing creative spaces should be developed in conjunction with the town’s creative community. “ 34. With regard to the foundry buildings, we note that Santon’s heritage report commissioned from Archaeology South East argues that the buildings do have merit and their preservation should be considered. We have now completed a measured survey of most of the original foundry buildings (drawings at appendix pp 11-14). This has allowed us to work up a strategy for keeping the buildings in use with a cost model that shows how this can be done economically. 35. We have a significant collection of historic photographs from the Edward Reeves archive demonstrating the importance of the buildings not just to Lewes but to the south east as a whole. We believe that these buildings represent the last remaining iron foundry in this part of England. We have asked English Heritage to consider listing some or all of the buildings (appendix pp 7-10). 36. We therefore argue that the failure to respond to the existing network of business activities represented by the Phoenix Estate and its relationship to the rest of Lewes town fails to fulfil LDC’s aspiration to improve employment opportunities, reduce the need for outcommuting, support local services and attract inward investment. 37. We also argue that the sequential and exceptions tests used to justify a housing-led development need to be reconsidered in the light of our evidence on the importance of the existing uses to the economic and social life of the town of Lewes. Environmental Impact SP3 proposed policy 38. There is little detailed discussion of the environmental impact of the implementation of SP3 in the current policy. The single reference to environmental matters is in paragraph 6.50 in relation to improved flood defences, which is also included in the criteria on page 55 (criterion i). LPR position 39. Given that the site is in Flood Zone 3, very careful consideration is required concerning the impact of any redevelopment on the site. 40. Our view is that the site should be retained within the floodplain, and that the development should be made flood resilient; for instance, by having no habitable spaces on the ground floor.
5
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
41. We also believe that as far as possible existing buildings should continue to be used so as to reduce the carbon footprint of any development. Additional evidence 42. Our study of the existing foundry buildings shows that the existing buildings have continued use value. This is consistent with the NPPF approach to embedded carbon, which is that authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions (NPPF paragraph 95). Is SP3 Sound? 43. This part of the paper assesses SP3 against the three definitions of soundness used in the NPPF. Is SP3 Positively Prepared? 44. There has been no objective assessment of the development requirements from the site with regard to the existing uses on the site, nor with respect to the type of space required by such uses both now and in the future. 45. The Council prepared its EELA without the benefit of an analysis of the economic activity taking place on the Phoenix Estate. 46. It cannot therefore claim, as it does in paragraph 6.61 of the JCS that: “there is not a quantitative need to provide additional employment floorspace based on the current levels of supply”. 47. In paragraph 6.62 the council claims that “its current use is not seen as an appropriate option to pursue in the Core Strategy”, without offering any evidence to back up its assertion. 48. The existence of the businesses on the Phoenix Estate demonstrates that there is a quantitative need for such space. 49. From our November 2014 survey, we can say that the space required is characterised as being: • large scale and basic and therefore available at below market rent; • flexible in use for light industrial, manufacturing and creative businesses, educational and arts enterprises; retained on the Phoenix Estate to preserve the complex and important network of interrelationships both on the estate and with the rest of the town; and co-located with housing designed to meet the needs of those who work on the site. 50. SP3 is therefore not sound given its failure to meet objectively assessed need consistent with achieving sustainable development.
6
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
Is SP3 Justified? 51. SP3 fails to demonstrate that it is the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives based on proportionate evidence. 52. The evidence that we have collected demonstrates that the current use, alongside other proposed uses is both sustainable and appropriate. 53. Lewes Phoenix Rising has prepared an alternative scheme that does meet objectively assessed need. These proposals have been consulted on widely in the town and continue to gain local support, with over 1,200 local residents currently signed up as supporters of our proposals. 54. During our recent consultation roadshow (December 2014) we asked visitors to complete a questionnaire. We have received 339 completed responses. 55. Of these, 96.7% thought that the Phoenix Ironworks should be retained and renovated. 56. 86.7% thought that it would be right to increase housing densities across the whole site to create a more sustainable development and release Phoenix Ironworks for community benefit (workspace and affordable housing). 57. 87.4% felt that it was very important to provide workspace for small businesses and selfemployment. 58. We therefore argue that SP3 is not justified and is therefore unsound. Is SP3 Effective? 59. It is currently difficult to find any evidence that SP3 is deliverable. 60. The current owners of the Phoenix Estate have failed to submit a planning application to implement SP3, in spite of working on their plans for the past three years. This is indicative of the fact that the current plan does not have the support of the town. 61. We know from the design review report of April 2014 (SDNPA, April 2014) that the planning authority noted that an evidential assessment of the existing buildings and uses needs to be made in order to inform the development strategy and that it could be more sustainable to reuse some of the existing structures on the site. 62. This evidential assessment has not, as far as we are aware, been made. 63. It is also the case that, in the April 2014 report, the National Park’s design review panel was not convinced by the proposed underground car-park, the location of which is the justification for demolishing most of the existing foundry buildings on the site. 64. This evidence points to the fact that SP3, as currently formulated and interpreted, is not deliverable.
7
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015
Is SP3 consistent with NPPF and the duties of the National Park? 65. Given the evidence that we have collected, it is clear that SP3 is not consistent with the NPPF core planning principles (para 17 of the NPPF). 66. Nor it is consistent with the duties of the National Park as set out in paragraph 115 and 116 of the NPPF to preserve cultural heritage. 67. NPPF encourages the conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. This includes consideration of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring (para 126 and para 131). In our view, SP3 fails to conform to this policy. 68. Para 70 of the NPPF requires planning authorities to guard against the loss of valued facilities and services and to encourage an integrated approach to the provision of housing, economic uses and community facilities. In our view, SP3 fails to achieve this requirement as it results in the significant loss of highly valued local services and replaces them with a housing-led scheme that fails to achieve the integration of housing and economic uses required by the NPPF.
Goldfinch Community Developer is the trading name of Goldfinch (Lewes) Ltd, a company registered in England, company number 8909093, registered office Martlet House, E1, Yeoman Gate, Yeoman Way, Worthing BN13 3QZ
8
Lewes Phoenix Rising January 2015