Policy HC14: Health Infrastructure

Comment

Representation ID: 4113

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Lapley, Stretton and Wheaton Aston Parish Council

There is not a clear indication of how all infrastructure needs, such as medical, have been considered throughout the plan and the potential need for increased hospital capacity, it is assumed this can be met out of the area or the potential need hasn’t been confirmed by the CCG

Comment

Representation ID: 4235

Received: 22/12/2022

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

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board (ICB) would wish to highlight that the term health should not be seen as a closed list restricted to simply primary care infrastructure (GPs) as may be the case by some audiences.

To deliver the joined-up support required to meet the needs of the local population, it should be noted that infrastructural requirements can span across partner services (including community, voluntary and secondary care) and therefore the term health should be understood in this context from both a policy and decision-making perspective.

Object

Representation ID: 4252

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: Miss Natasha Styles

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There is a common misconception that older person’s housing places an additional burden on healthcare infrastructure. It produces a large number of benefits which can help to reduce the demands on Health and Social Services and other care facilities. Residents remain in better health, both physically and mentally and essential practitioners can all attend to visit several occupiers at once. This leads to a far more efficient and effective use of public resources.

This is supported by PPG on Housing for Older and Disabled People at Paragraph 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626.

Comment

Representation ID: 4476

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Bloor Homes recognises the need for development to address unacceptable impact on health infrastructure. At present the policy is restricted to seeking a proportionate financial contribution where it is demonstrated that existing facilities do not have capacity to accommodate patients. Bloor Homes considers this policy should provide additional flexibility by recognising on-site provision of health infrastructure may represent a more
appropriate solution to meeting health needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 4591

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Taylor Wimpey recognises the need for development to address unacceptable impact on health infrastructure. At present the policy is restricted to seeking a proportionate financial contribution where it is demonstrated that existing facilities do not have capacity to accommodate patients.
Taylor Wimpey considers this policy should provide additional flexibility by recognising on-site provision of health infrastructure may represent a more appropriate solution to meeting health needs in some circumstances.

Comment

Representation ID: 4827

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

The policy should make specific reference to the CIL Regulation 122 tests for planning obligations to ensure that all requests are appropriately justified, lawful, and comply with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5180

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

What level of impact is deemed unacceptable?
Policy should acknowledge that not all residents of a development will be new to a catchment area, some residents may already be registered locally and therefore will not create an additional burden. Careful analysis is required with regard to the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new patients before any conclusions are reached.

Object

Representation ID: 5306

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Miller Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy is not justified as currently drafted and should be amended as suggested unless further evidence provided.

This policy refers to proposed developments causing ‘unacceptable impact’ on existing healthcare facilities but fails to define what level of impact is deemed unacceptable or how that is to be measured. The policy should acknowledge that not all residents of a development will be new to a catchment area of the relevant NHS Trust and that many will indeed be registered with local health care providers, thereby not creating any additional impacts.

Careful analysis is required in respect of the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new patients, before reaching a conclusion as to what any CIL compliant financial contribution might be, and the requirement for CIL compliance of any request should be specified within the policy for clarity.

The policy is not justified as currently drafted and should be amended as suggested above unless further evidence provided.

Object

Representation ID: 5307

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

What level of impact is deemed unacceptable?
Policy should acknowledge that not all residents of a development will be new to a catchment area, may already be registered locally and therefore will not create an additional burden. Careful analysis is required with regard to the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new patients before any conclusions are reached. The policy should provide additional flexibility by recognising on-site provision of health infrastructure may represent a more appropriate solution to meeting health needs.

Object

Representation ID: 5341

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy refers to proposed developments causing ’unacceptable impact’ on existing health care facilities but fails to define what level of impact is deemed unacceptable or how that is to be measured. The policy should also acknowledge that not all residents of a
development will be new to a catchment area and may indeed already be registered by the local health care provider, thereby not creating a net additional burden.
Careful analysis is therefore required with regard to the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new patients, before reaching a conclusion as to what any CIL Regulation 122 compliant financial request might be. The requirement for CIL Reg compliance of any request should be clearly specified within policy.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5381

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy refers to proposed developments causing ‘unacceptable impact’ on existing healthcare facilities but fails to define what level of impact is deemed unacceptable or how that is to be measured. The policy should acknowledge that not all residents of a development will be new to a catchment area and may indeed already be registered by the local health care provider, thereby not creating a net additional burden.
Careful analysis is required therefore with regard to the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new patients, before reaching a conclusion as to what any CIL Regulation 122 compliant financial request might be. The requirement for CIL Reg compliance of any request should be clearly specified within policy.
The policy is considered unsound without amendment, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5396

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Rigby Estates LLP

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

What level of impact is deemed unacceptable?
Policy should acknowledge that not all residents of a development will be new to a catchment area, may already be registered locally and therefore will not create an additional burden. Careful analysis is required with regard to the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new patients before any conclusions are reached.