Policy MA1 – Masterplanning Strategic Sites

Object

Representation ID: 4128

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes Ltd and St Philips

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Summary:
Policy MA1’s scope is appropriate, but it is currently ambiguous and ineffective at points. It should be clarified that the SMPs should be submitted alongside planning applications and be approved upon their determination. The policy should also clarify that SMPs should broadly align with the scope of Concept Plans, and that technical assessments should drive SMPs. It should make clear that POS delivery should be standards/evidence driven, and should combine clauses H, I and L. Clause J should remove reference to ‘provably popular’ Design Codes.

Comment

Representation ID: 4145

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Cannock Chase AONB

The AONB would welcome the opportunity to be consulted on the emerging Master Plan for Strategic development location: Land North of Penkridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 4231

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board

Sub-paragraph h refers to 'Community facilities' and it would be useful to qualify this with the inclusion of 'healthcare estate' in order that this form of infrastructure is explicitly referenced and considers the potential for on and offsite provision in the same vein as education facilities.

The approach taken in respect of the healthcare estate is to be informed by the ICB's Strategic Estates Plans, which in respect of the primary care network, are scheduled to be updated by June 2023, thereafter capable of informing the masterplanning process for these strategic sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 4387

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Welcome policy but require reference within the policy to the need to conserve the significance of heritage assets,including their setting, as a specific bullet point.

Support

Representation ID: 4470

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Bloor Homes supports the Council’s masterplanning approach to ensure high quality design. Bloor Homes confirms that a comprehensive and deliverable sitewide
Strategic Master Plan will be prepared in respect of the Strategic Development Location at Bilbrook. This will be prepared in conjunction with the Council and informed through pre-application discussions.
It is the intention of Bloor Homes to prepare this site-wide Strategic Master Plan to inform a future planning application, recognising that this Masterplan will be
adopted prior to the determination of any planning application.

Comment

Representation ID: 4584

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Taylor Wimpey supports the Council’s masterplanning approach to ensure high quality design. Taylor Wimpey confirms that a comprehensive and deliverable site-wide Strategic Master Plan will be prepared in respect of the Strategic Development Location at Cross Green. This will be prepared in conjunction with the Council and informed through pre-application discussions.
Taylor Wimpey welcomes the removal of the requirement for a Supplementary Planning Document for Linthouse Lane set out in the Preferred Options document.
The Strategic Master Plan will be prepared having regard to the requirements established through SA2 and the suite of proposed development management policies. In addition, the preparation of a masterplan and design code will provide opportunity for a collaborative approach including engagement with the local community and key stakeholders.

Object

Representation ID: 4814

Received: 24/02/2023

Respondent: Trine Developments Limited

Agent: Cerda Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We generally support the principle of the preparation of wider strategic masterplanning for these important sites, but it is imperative that the Council help to ensure that Trine are able to meaningfully and fairly input into and influence the preparation of the Strategic Master Plan (SMP) for Penkridge. It is also important that Trine are actively involved in any pre-application discussions,
community and stakeholder engagement for the site.

One area of concern under e) Green Infrastructure Framework. relates to the provision of the following:
'Areas for allotments/community gardens/forest schools etc. (informed by engagement with local community/Parish Council).'

There is a potential risk here given the explicit requirement for areas to be identified within the SMP that the need, appropriateness and quantum of such provision on the Land North of Penkridge may not align with the desires of the local community/Parish Council which if there is no agreement could be seen as a failing of the SMP.

It is suggested that the explicit reference to the provisions of allotments/community gardens/forest schools are removed as a requirement of the policy and included within the ‘for example list’ under the first point of part e) Green Infrastructure Framework.The requirement for community engagement would remain a requirement under part k) of the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 4960

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Barratt has no objection to the allocation of land to the east of Bilbrook. Consider that the development of Site Reference 500 forms a logical extension to Strategic Allocation SA1 and pedestrian and green infrastructure links could be provided to strengthen the accessibility and environmental net gain of the overall allocation. It is not considered that the ‘constraints’ identified within the SHELAA hinder the site’s potential to deliver housing. The proposed Concept Plan for Site SA1 also shows that the proposed school and community hub within Site SA1 is in close proximity to site 500 so although it is currently detached, the provision of these facilities will make the east of Bilbrook even more sustainable than it already is. The extension of Site SA1 to include Barratt’s land (Site 500) will also mean that more housing is being directed to the most sustainable settlement in the District which accords with SSDC’s proposed spatial strategy.

The SHELAA 2022 states that the key constraints are that the ‘site is disassociated from any village development boundary’ and that a small part of the site is within Flood Zone 3. The SHELAA states that small part of the site (ref 500) within Flood Zone 3 has been removed from the overall area which Barratt supports and considers is not a constraint that would impact on the site being delivered for housing. Proposed built development can be directed to Flood Zone 1 areas within the site.

Challenges transport and landscape / green belt assumptions made on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 5020

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land at Cross Green is proposed as an ‘employment led new settlement/site,’ rather than an urban extension. Such a classification is rather strange, given that the allocation does not actually include any employment provision within it. Vistry consider that the specific allocation at Cross Green, through the polies MA1 and SA2 is unsound.
The masterplan policy MA1 requires the submission and approval of a site wide masterplan, however, there is no clarity on the timing of this – whether this is in advance of any planning application or whether it can be submitted with any outline or full application. It also requires at (j) a strategy for a site wide design code, which will need to be consulted on and approved prior to any application permission, although the clause in the policy is less than clear and explicit about this, and at (l) a site-specific infrastructure delivery schedule setting out broad triggers for critical infrastructure delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 5029

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In Appendix B of the Local Plan there are a series of master planning proformas which include plans of the proposed allocations. The plans are not clear in terms of what is the precise area of the allocation to be delivered. An area of housing allocation is shown, together with ‘Green Infrastructure,’ which, in each case, is outside the area identified in red for the allocation. However, the policies in each case include the provision of green infrastructure. What is the purpose of the areas of green infrastructure outside the allocation boundary and how will it be delivered if it is not part of the allocation?
Vistry consider that the actual allocation boundaries should be comprehensive in their nature and encompass everything within them that is required to be provided as part of the policy.
The Plan is unsound in this respect as it is not effective.

Object

Representation ID: 5330

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerned about the overly prescriptive detail set out in matters to be included within Strategic Master Plans, including specific elements such as forest schools.