Policy HC10: Design Requirements

Comment

Representation ID: 4008

Received: 30/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Tony Hinkley

Sustainable design: I may have missed this but as well as car charging points there is likely to be a need for 3 phase electricity supplies to houses to manage future load demands of electric cars. Also it is imperative that houses are built with solar panels or heat pumps (air or ground source). Its cheaper to build for the future rather than retrofit.

Comment

Representation ID: 4254

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Coal Authority

The Coal Authority requests that addition of a further criteria to this policy to address risks posed by land instability and contamination.

Comment

Representation ID: 4338

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: The British Horse Society

All vulnerable road users should be included on multi-user routes; equestrians are identified as equal to cyclists in the Highway Code hierarchy of road users. Any newly constructed paths should be integrated/physically linked with the existing public rights of way network where possible and needed, clearly waymarked and recorded on either the definitive map or another publicly accessible map as appropriate. Natural surfaces, appropriate specified crushed stone or alternatives such as bound rock rubber crumb are suitable for all user groups.

Comment

Representation ID: 4403

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Clause a) would recommend amending to 'and' Conservation Area Management Plans, rather than 'or'. Support references to heritage mentioned throughout the policy and would request a link to evidence base documents relating to historic townscape and landscape character. Clause q) we would welcome the inclusion of 'heritage' withnin consideration as part of public realm initiatives.

Support

Representation ID: 4474

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Bloor Homes supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance.
It should be noted that the proposal at Land East of Bilbrook has already been subject to significant discussion with stakeholders and further consultation will
be undertaken in line with the provisions of Policy MA1 in the preparation of a strategic masterplan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4509

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Cameron Homes supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance.
It should be noted that Cameron Homes has entered into pre-application discussions to inform the emerging proposal for the proposed allocation at Land East of Wolverhampton Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 4538

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Cameron Homes supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance.
It should be noted that Cameron Homes has entered into pre-application discussions to inform the emerging proposal for the proposed allocation at Land adjoining Saredon Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 4564

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Cameron Homes supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance.
It should be noted that Cameron Homes has entered into pre-application discussions to inform the emerging proposal for the remainder of the allocation at Landywood Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 4588

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Taylor Wimpey supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance.
It should be noted that the proposal at Cross Green has already been subject to significant discussion with stakeholders and further consultation will be undertaken in line with the provisions of Policy MA1 in the preparation of a strategic masterplan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4621

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Four Ashes Road LTD

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance is supported.
It should be noted that Four Ashes Road Ltd is intending to enter into preapplication discussions to inform the emerging proposal for land at Four Ashes Road.

Object

Representation ID: 4637

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Clowes objects to the policy HC10, because it is not in accordance with national policy. Part c of Policy HC10 states that all developments will be required to incorporate tree lined streets. We consider that the policy should be worded as set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 131 states that “planning policies…should ensure that new streets are tree lined” with footnote 50 adding “unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate”.

Policy HC9 should be amended to refer to situations where tree-lined streets may not be appropriate.
Consultations should also take place with Staffordshire highways authority in order to confirm their acceptance of tree lined streets in principle.

Part e states that proposals should use “bespoke house types to avoid a monotonous visual appearance”. It is unclear what is meant from that but on major development schemes delivered by national housebuilders, providing all bespoke house types is not
achievable or reasonable.

Comment

Representation ID: 4677

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Keon Homes supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 4717

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Lovell Homes supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance.
It should be noted that Lovell Homes has entered into pre-application discussions to inform the emerging proposal for land at Pool House Road where Lovell Homes has an interest.

Object

Representation ID: 4765

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Harding

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy wording should not be interpreted by the Council’s Development Management Officers as conveying the weight of a Development Plan Document onto these documents. The Council’s requirements should be set out in sufficient detail to determine a planning application without relying on, other criteria or guidelines set out in separate guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4823

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The wording of this policy appears to give guidance in the South Staffordshire Design Guide SPD and other guidance documents the same weight as a Development Plan Policy. This is inappropriate and the wording should be amended appropriately.

Object

Representation ID: 4922

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Gladman

Agent: Gladman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Design should be considered at the most appropriate stage of the planning process, either through full applications or reserved matter stages. Without this being referenced in the policy, design matters may be the cause of unnecessary delay at outline stage.

As proposed the policy requires all developments to meet the eighteen listed criteria. Given the Council is allocating a range of different site sizes and types, it may not be possible for all forthcoming proposals to meet all the listed criteria. Therefore, the policy needs an additional layer of flexibility which recognises that good design measures will vary from site to site.

Object

Representation ID: 4967

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Part c of Policy HC10 states that all developments will be required to incorporate tree lined streets. We consider that the policy should be worded as set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 131 states that “planning policies…should ensure that new streets are tree-lined” with footnote 50 adding “unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate”. In order to be consistent with national policy (NPPF paragraph 35), Policy HC9 should be amended to refer to situations where tree-lined streets may not be appropriate. Barratt’s experience on a number of current housing developments is that Highways Authorities are not always supportive of tree-lined streets particularly in relation to the long-term management of the highways trees.
Part e states that proposals should use “bespoke house types to avoid a monotonous visual appearance”. It is unclear what is meant from that but on major development schemes delivered by national housebuilders, providing all bespoke house types is not achievable or reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 4989

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Part c of Policy HC10 states that all developments will be required to incorporate tree lined streets. We consider that the policy should be worded as set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 131 states that “planning policies…should ensure that new streets are tree-lined” with footnote 50 adding “unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate”. In order to be consistent with national policy (NPPF paragraph 35), Policy HC10 should be amended to refer to situations where tree-lined streets may not be appropriate. Barratt’s experience on a number of current housing developments is that Highways Authorities are not always supportive of tree-lined streets particularly in relation to the long-term management of the highways trees.
Part e states that proposals should use “bespoke house types to avoid a monotonous visual appearance”. It is unclear what is meant from that but on major development schemes delivered by national housebuilders, providing all bespoke house types is not achievable or reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 5091

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We have considered Policy HC10 and note that there is a lack of reference to character areas in major sites, so this should be given greater emphasis as it will be sought by the council in any case. We also consider that the policy needs to be supportive of flexible approaches to planning applications (such as a hybrid outline) now that the Hillside Judgement has been released. The Hillside Judgment reaffirms the ‘Pilkington principle’. This establishes that where a development has already been built in accordance with and under a first permission, the ability to lawfully implement a second permission on part of the same defined site is dependent on whether it is physically possible to carry out that second permission based on what has already been carried out in the first permission. This occurrence is sometimes referred to as a ‘drop-in permission’.With regard to point J in Policy HC10: ‘Gives safe and convenient ease of movement to all users prioritising pedestrians and cycle users’, this point, in our view, should include the requirements for developments to be adequately lit to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users.In order to be considered consistent with para 82 of the NPPF, this policy requires greater flexibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 5130

Received: 13/12/2022

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration

We have considered Policy HC10 and note that there is a lack of reference to character areas in major sites, so this should be given greater emphasis. We also consider that the policy needs to be supportive of flexible approaches planning applications (such as a hybrid outline) now that the Hillside Judgement has been released.

With regard to point J in Policy HC10. – ‘Gives safe and convenient ease of movement to all users prioritising pedestrians and cycle users’ This point should include the requirements for developments to be adequately lit to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users.

In order to be considered consistent with para 82 of the NPPF, this policy requires greater flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 5143

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We have considered Policy HC10 and note that there is a lack of reference to character areas in major sites, so this should be given greater emphasis as it will be sought by the council in any case.

We also consider that the policy needs to be supportive of flexible approaches to planning applications (such as a hybrid outline) now that the Hillside Judgement has been released. The Hillside Judgment reaffirms the ‘Pilkington principle’. This establishes that where a development has already been built in accordance with and under a first permission, the ability to lawfully implement a second permission on part of the same defined site is dependent on whether it is physically possible to carry out that second permission based on what has already been caried out in the first permission. This occurrence is sometimes referred to as a ‘drop-in permission’.

With regard to point J in Policy HC10: ‘Gives safe and convenient ease of movement to all users prioritising pedestrians and cycle users’, this point, in our view, should include the requirements for developments to be adequately lit to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users.

In order to be considered consistent with para 82 of the NPPF, this policy requires greater flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 5155

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Reed Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We have considered Policy HC10 and note that there is a lack of reference to character areas in major sites, so this should be given greater emphasis. We also consider that the policy needs to be supportive of flexible approaches planning applications (such as a hybrid outline) now that the Hillside Judgement has been released.

The Hillside Judgment reaffirms the ‘Pilkington principle’. This establishes that where a development has already been built in accordance with and under a first permission, the ability to lawfully implement a second permission on part of the same defined site is dependent on whether it is physically possible to carry out that second permission based on what has already been caried out in the first permission. This occurrence is sometimes referred to as a ‘drop-in permission’.

With regard to point J in Policy HC10. – ‘Gives safe and convenient ease of movement to all users prioritising pedestrians and cycle users’ This point should include the requirements for developments to be adequately lit to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users.

In order to be considered consistent with para 82 of the NPPF, this policy requires greater flexibility

Object

Representation ID: 5178

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The provision of tree lined streets should be subject to highway authority agreement.

Delete reference to house types and tenures as this is repetition of material in policy HC1.

Object

Representation ID: 5240

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We have considered Policy HC10 and note that there is a lack of reference to character areas in major sites, so this should be given greater emphasis. We also consider that the policy needs to be supportive of flexible approaches to planning applications (such as a hybrid outline) now that the
Hillside Judgement2 has been released.
The Hillside Judgment reaffirms the ‘Pilkington principle’. This establishes that where a
development has already been built in accordance with and under a first permission, the ability to lawfully implement a second permission on part of the same defined site is dependent on whether it is physically possible to carry out that second permission based on what has already been carried out in the first permission. This occurrence is sometimes referred to as a ‘drop-in permission’.
With regard to point J in Policy HC10. – ‘Gives safe and convenient ease of movement to all users prioritising pedestrians and cycle users’ This point should include the requirements for developments to be adequately lit to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users.
In order to be considered consistent with para 82 of the NPPF, this policy requires greater flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 5252

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: CCB Investments

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We have considered Policy HC10 and note that there is a lack of reference to character areas in major sites, so this should be given greater emphasis. We also consider that the policy needs to be supportive of flexible approaches to planning applications (such as a hybrid outline) now that the Hillside Judgement2 has been released.
The Hillside Judgment reaffirms the ‘Pilkington principle’. This establishes that where a development has already been built in accordance with and under a first permission, the ability to lawfully implement a second permission on part of the same defined site is dependent on whether it is physically possible to carry out that second permission based on what has already been carried out in the first permission. This occurrence is sometimes referred to as a ‘drop-in permission’.
With regard to point J in Policy HC10. – ‘Gives safe and convenient ease of movement to all users prioritising pedestrians and cycle users’ This point should include the requirements for developments to be adequately lit to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users.
In order to be considered consistent with para 82 of the NPPF, this policy requires greater flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 5290

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

The provision of tree lined streets should be subject to highway authority agreement.

Delete reference to house types and tenures as this is repetition of material in policy HC1.

Object

Representation ID: 5301

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Miller Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy is not effective or consistent with national policy as currently drafted and should be amended as suggested.

Miller do raise issues with the following criteria:

Criteria a – this criteria and wider policy largely relies on detail within latest South Staffordshire Design Guide SPD and relevant national and local design guides etc.; however these documents cannot be given full weight as they have not been subject to examination and are not part of the Local Plan. As such any detail from these documents which is intended to guide the determination of applications for planning permission should be set clearly within this Local Plan policy, to ensure that it is effective in line with the NPPF test.

Criteria c – tree lined streets – this should be refined to reflect footnote 50 of the NPPF which states streets should be tree-lined: ‘unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate’, and to note that such an approach is subject to highway authority agreement.

Criteria l – simply duplicates policy HC1 and is therefore unnecessary and could be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 5339

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

St Philips supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance. However, a number of specific comments are made on the policy as drafted:
• The provision of tree lined streets (item c) should be subject to highway authority agreement, and where appropriate, their adoption. In St Philips’ experience, local
highway authorities do not want trees in immediate proximity of the street due to management concerns or liabilities.
• The point on house types and tenures (item l) is repetition of policy material set out at Policy HC1 and is therefore unnecessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 5358

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

The introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance is generally supported.

Object

Representation ID: 5379

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The provision of tree lined streets (item c) should be identified within policy as being subject to highway authority agreement, and where appropriate, their adoption.
Item l) regarding house types and tenures is a repetition of policy material discussed in Policies HC1 – Housing Mix and HC3 – Affordable Housing and is therefore unnecessary.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.