Policy HC15: Education

Comment

Representation ID: 4086

Received: 13/12/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire Police

Whilst aim to encourage walking to school is acknowledged, parent parking at drop off and pick ups should be considered to avoid anti-social parking and community tensions.

Object

Representation ID: 4189

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Mr John Marsh

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

See attachment

Comment

Representation ID: 4477

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Bloor Homes supports Policy HC15 in respect of education infrastructure which appears to represent a continuation of the current approach.
It should be noted the Land East of Bilbrook is proposing to allow for the provision of a new first school to serve the proposed strategic allocation. This is a requirement set out in Policy SA1. The proposed location for the proposed First School is collocated with the proposed community hub and provision for the elderly.
It is recommended that engagement with SCC Education informs further refinement of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan as part of the Local Plan review process. A definitive trigger for requiring the transfer of the land and for the
opening of any associated school is also necessary to inform any site phasing plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4592

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Taylor Wimpey supports Policy HC15 in respect of education infrastructure which appears to represent a continuation of the current approach.
It should be noted the Land at Cross Green is proposing to deliver a new first/primary school to serve the proposed strategic allocation. This is a requirement set out in Policy SA2. The Development Framework Plan for Cross Green identifies a site of 1.6ha to cater for this new facility which is located within the centre of the site, close to other services and facilities proposed, including a local centre and green infrastructure.
It is recommended that engagement with SCC Education informs further refinement of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan as part of the Local Plan review process. If a First School is required rather than a Primary School, the size of the site necessary to accommodate the school will be less than the 1.6ha identified in Policy SA2. A definitive trigger for requiring the transfer of the land and for the opening of any associated school is also necessary to inform any site phasing plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4828

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: 5094

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst we broadly support this policy, we note that it perhaps hasn’t been correctly applied by South Staffordshire in omitting the promotion sites in Perton, on the basis that these sites are not (in the view of the Council), sufficiently close to existing education facilities. We consider that this should be reconsidered in order to make this policy justified.

Object

Representation ID: 5181

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy as currently written makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development. Policy should recognise that new infrastructure will only be required where it can be demonstrated that existing capacity to accommodate growth does not currently exist.

Object

Representation ID: 5308

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 consistent with national policy as currently drafted and should be amended as suggested

The policy makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development. However, any such provision to be delivered via S106 legal agreement, must have regard to the tests within CIL Regulation 122 and the policy should make this explicit. Furthermore, the policy should also recognise that new infrastructure will only be required from new development where it can be demonstrated that existing capacity to accommodate growth does not currently exist.

Object

Representation ID: 5320

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy as currently written makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development. Policy should recognise that new infrastructure will only be required where it can be demonstrated that existing capacity to accommodate growth does not currently exist.

Object

Representation ID: 5342

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is broad support for the policy’s objective for the improvement or construction of schools to meet the demand generated by children in new development. However, as currently written, the policy makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development.
The Policy text requires further clarification as any such provision to be delivered by a S106 agreement, must have regard to the tests of CIL Regulation 122. The policy should make this explicit. In this regard, the policy should also recognise new infrastructure will be required
from new development, only where it can be demonstrated that existing capacity to accommodate growth does not currently exist.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5382

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 policy makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development. However, any such provision to be delivered by a S106 agreement, must have regard to the tests of CIL Regulation 122. The policy should make this explicit. In this regard, the policy should also recognise new infrastructure will be required from new development, only where it can be demonstrated that existing capacity to accommodate growth does not currently exist.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5397

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Rigby Estates LLP

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy as currently written makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development. Policy should recognise that new infrastructure will only be required where it can be demonstrated that existing capacity to accommodate growth does not currently exist.