Preferred Options November 2021

Object

Representation ID: 1016

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Local Plan lacks clarity on whether a Green Belt review is required under Strategic Objective 1. No comments regarding the vision.

Object

Representation ID: 1017

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

DS1 need not refer to the fact that the Green Belt boundary ‘will be altered though the Plan’. The supporting text should provide a clear statement on whether the Council consider a Green Belt review as being necessary. The policy should acknowledge that ‘reserve’ or ‘white land’ is no longer the subject of Green Belt policy.

Support

Representation ID: 1022

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support Penkridge as Tier 1 settlement including the allocation of land at Cherrybook Drive which is sustainable, suitable, available and deliverable for development within the first 5 years of the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 1023

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Recognition of the need for strategic development locations is noted. However scale of development proposed under SA4 should be referenced.

Support

Representation ID: 1026

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Persimmon Homes broadly supports the allocations identified through Policy SA5, in particular Land at Cherrybrook Drive. Site would act as a natural extension to Penkridge and is available and deliverable. Application for the site was previously written up for approval demonstrating it is acceptable in policy terms. The technical work previously undertaken relating to landscape and visual impact, traffic and transport, heritage, ecology, flooding, noise and air quality all remains which valid and demonstrates that the site has both the capacity and qualities to be suitable for residential development

Object

Representation ID: 1028

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy HC1 - policy should be worded with more clarity to allow for flexibility in its application, especially in respect to town center settings. Housing mix should guided by market signals. Approach of 75% of properties being less than 4 beds itoo restrictive. Policy should comment that all is subject to viability assessment. Policy HC3 - 'major residential development' needs defining. Unsure if grant funding is a matter for the Local Plan to consider. Policy HC4 - no definition of 'older people' provided, clarity needed.Policy HC6 - need to work with both the PC and a housing needs enabler should not be an ‘and’ but should be an ‘or’. Helpful if allowance for market housing on non-Green Belt RES was clarified. Policy HC9 - provision of tree lined streets should be subject to highways agreement. Policy HC14 - policy fails to define what impact is deemed unacceptable, the policy should imply that new development should meet CIL regulation tests. Policy EC11 - should reflect requirement for EV charging points. Policy NB2 - should reflect Environment Act. Policy NB3 - Not supported - questions as to whether this Policy is sufficient to meet the statutory duty to protect the SAC. NB6 - unclear where 31% reduction target has come from.

Support

Representation ID: 1040

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

The Policy requirement to comply NDSS is generally supported but some flexibility must be allowed in its application. Policy NB10 - policy supported