Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6763

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy DS1 as currently drafted is unsound and does not meet with the provisions of the NPPF Paragraph 35. It has been demonstrated that there are clear exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land to meet the unmet housing needs of the GBBCHMA. The delivery of 640 homes is not however considered to be a proportionate contribution towards meeting this need. In addition, there are additional Green Belt sites suitable and available for housing which are sustainably located and will contribute further to meeting this need as well as addressing other issues and challenges identified within the District. The Green Belt boundary should therefore be amended further to enable the release of additional Green Belt sites, such as land west of Wrottesley Park Road.

Richborough consider the 2024 Publication Plan should establish Green Belt boundaries which will not require amendment in the next Local Plan cycle through the
introduction of safeguarded land. Richborough continues to advocate the importance and suitability of a growth corridor focused around the broad location of the A449 and West Coast Mainline between Wolverhampton and Stafford.

The wording of the policy should therefore be revisited ensuring:

1) It makes reference to an early Plan Review
2) It recognises the full extent of the housing shortfall in the GBBCHMA through a significant housing contribution through the Plan period having regard to its contiguous border with the West Midlands Conurbation under the Duty to Cooperate.
3) Amend Green belt boundary to address the sub regional issues, allow boundary to ensure and introduce safeguarded land.

Object

Representation ID: 6771

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The overarching thrust that new housing development should be focused in sustainable locations in the District is supported. However, it is considered that to achieve a well-balanced and sustainable growth across the District over the plan period, it is important that a range of sites are allocated for housing.

Perton is a Tier 2 settlement with access to employment and a range of facilities as well as a frequent bus route which connects to Wolverhampton, Codsall, Pattingham and the centre of Perton village. It is considered that Perton is a sustainable settlement within South Staffordshire District Council, capable of supporting housing growth to meet housing need and accessible to public transport in line with the Plan's spatial strategy. Perton benefits from a good level of essential community facilities and a wider range of public transport and supporting infrastructure.

The promoted site west of Wrottesley Park Road is adjacent the proposed allocated site and so in term of sustainability is compatible. The site would also deliver additional benefits in the form of a country park. If the LPA do not wish to allocate the site for housing, Richborough strongly encourage the Council to safeguard the land west of Wrottesley Park Road, Perton for future development, which could assist in addressing the GBBCHMA unmet housing need in the future and ensure that Green Belt boundaries set in the Local Plan endure.

In terms of the SA assessment of the site, Richborough disputes the above post-mitigation findings, particularly in respect of biodiversity, landscape, and townscape and education with the SA failing to take account of the proposal to deliver a country park and a new first school. It is contended that the SA impact score for Landscape and Townscape should duly be tempered to a Minor Negative ('-') score. The site is therefore considered capable of providing good access to both primary and secondary schools, in fact it could improve education provision at primary level, and should accordingly score a Minor Positive ('+') score in respect of education.

In terms of the Green Belt study, as the side would not extend further west than the proposed allocation, the site is overall considered to make a moderate contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. Given the reduced impact upon the five purposes of the Green Belt set out above in Table 5.2, is contented that the Green Belt harm identified within the Study should be reduced from ‘moderate-high’ to ‘low-moderate'.

Unclear how site is assessed as having low access to employment in the 2021 RSFA. An initial strategy has been developed to improve the operation of Perton light junction on the A41, focussed on increasing the capacity of the two A41 approach arms. Site will have a positive impact on the natural environment is free of constraints and will deliver a considerable number of site specific opportunities. The site is deliverable and immediately available and subject to allocation, could deliver homes and associated community early in the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 6777

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Achieving 35dph across large sites could prove difficult and conflict with other policy provisions across the Plan, particularly having regard to the District’s rural character.

Reliance on the delivery of housing developments at a higher density delivery does not provide a reliable strategy for the delivery of the District’s housing requirement across the Plan period and therefore a greater number of housing sites will be necessary to achieve the required housing numbers.

Object

Representation ID: 6808

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy continues to refer to proposed development 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.

The requirement for CIL Reg compliance of any request should be clearly specified within policy.

The policy needs to be mor explicit over what health infrastructure it is needing.

Object

Representation ID: 6815

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst important that consideration is given to the potential requirement for a species mitigation licence, this should be identified within the supporting policy text or the Natural
Environment and Biodiversity SPD for information purposes only rather than under the provisions of planning policy. The requirement should therefore be deleted from Policy NB1.

In referring to the best and most versatile agricultural land the policy sets out that it will be protected and enhanced. The NPPF (at paragraph 180) however recognises the economic and other benefits of agricultural land which should be considered in the overall planning balance alongside the provision of much needed homes to meet the District and the wider GBBCHMA. The policy as currently drafted should be amended to accurately reflect the provisions of national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6819

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The recent Ministerial Statement on Local Energy Efficiency Standards dated 13th December 2023 was clear that Local Plans should not be placing onerous requirements on developers which exceed the requirements of national Building Regulations.

It is noted that the Council have not undertaken an updated viability study to support the 2024 Publication Plan with both the Sustainable Construction Policy NB6 Task A Report (2023) and Sustainable Construction Policy NB6 - Addendum Report (2024) postdating the most up to date Viability Report 2022. The Addendum Report sets out that the 63% reduction on the Part L 2021 TER (regulated carbon emissions) was the most carbon effective option that remained within the 7% cost uplift that the viability had previously tested. There is the risk however of making various assumptions here without vigorously testing against the specifics of the revised policy and the potential cost implications for proposed developments and whilst the policy incorporates the ability to demonstrate a site specific viability case a thorough and up to date assessment should be undertaken to assess alongside the implications of Policy NB6A other policy requirements set out in the 2024 Publication Plan.

Regarding clause A& of the policy, there are issues of data protection and consent surrounding the recording and sharing of data with a third party and/or the reliance on the cooperation of private home owners to share date in
order to meet with the requirements of any monitoring condition associated with Policy NB6A.

Secondly, a question arises as to the purpose of such widespread collation of such data. Extracting, what is in effect lifestyle data, from private individuals, is neither considered desirable nor practical in this regard. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council have considered or addressed the GDPR implications of this requirement, its effect on ‘mortgage-ability’, or indeed its effect on sales
values.

Object

Representation ID: 6820

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy NB6C Clause C2 is considered unnecessary with Building Regulations instead providing the basis on which the construction of buildings should adhere to.

Clause 3 in relation to ‘easy material re-use and disassembly’ and ‘end of life demolition’ is ambiguous and lacks clarity, placing reliance on further detail within an SPD. The SPD should do no more than clarify the Local Plan policy, and it is suggested that if the requirements for implementing the policy require explanation now, then these should either be included within the Plan Policy or set out within the explanatory text.

The requirement for an Energy Statement to accompany applications is referenced only within the supporting text at Paragraph 13.15. To ensure clarity to the reader reference to the provision of an Energy Statement if deemed necessary to deliver the requirements of Policy NB6C should be explicitly set out within the Policy itself rather than an afterthought. The purpose of an Energy Statement at the planning stages is however questioned given the requirements under Building Regulations to meet specific standards of construction in relation to energy efficiency with housebuilders housing portfolios designed to address these requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 6974

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

The Plan’s vision and objectives should be amended to reflect the need to meet both the present and future housing requirements, including those pressures arising through the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities, in particular the GBBCHMA.

Comment

Representation ID: 6975

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Strategic Objective 1 lacks clarity and does not define the exceptional circumstances for release of Green Belt land as part of its strategy. It should be made clear that the need to identify land for growth and development over the Plan period, and beyond, means that there are exceptional circumstances arising which have required a full & detailed Green Belt boundary review.

Comment

Representation ID: 6976

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Strategic Objective 2 could be strengthened in meeting the needs of both existing and new residents of the District and GBBCHMA. In determining what is considered to be a proportionate contribution to the HMA’s unmet housing needs, SSDC must ensure specific consideration has been given to the district’s ability to make a substantially larger contribution, and greater recognition should be given to Tier 2 and 3 settlements.