Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6997

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy needs to define ‘older people’ as it is unclear as to exactly who the policy is targeting or who would be eligible to occupy such dwellings. The Council do not define what ages will be restricted for single storey development and, as such, the policy requires clarification. There is no evidence to suggest that the provisions of HC4 have been subject to viability testing for major developments. Extra care and retirement living often need a minimum critical mass to be viable and the Council needs to determine which should be able to support the provision of such accommodation, it also needs to provide much greater clarity on when such housing will be required and to make clear that some housing types may be required on any given site.

Object

Representation ID: 6998

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is noted that the Plan continues to require 100% of all housing to be M4(2) compliant. This raises an issue of affordability. Whilst the principle is agreed, it is not a requirement of the whole population to have such a provision and delivering this will have an impact on the overall capacity of sites to deliver new homes. The M4(2) standard is optional within Building Regulations, if the Government had intended that evidence of an ageing population alone justifies adoption of optional standards, then such standard would be mandatory. The requirement for 100% M4(2) homes is not considered to be adequately justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 7000

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

The policy should be clear that in having regard to the Council’s self-build register, it is only Part 1 of the register which needs to be considered. The policy should also recognise that delivery of self-build housing on new residential sites successfully occurs when there is a distinct phasing or grouping of plots secured for such delivery. Whilst Richborough generally supports the concept of self-build housing, they do not consider providing them as part of a larger housing development is the most appropriate solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 7001

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

The introduction of a detailed design policy to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places is supported. However, the provision of tree lined streets should be subject to highway authority agreement. The point on house types and tenures is repetition of policy material set out in HC1. The provision of bespoke house types is onerous and unrealistic for commercial housebuilders who work with a portfolio of house types, the reference to ‘bespoke homes’ is unjustified and should be amended to refer to a ‘range of house types’. The policy is currently unsound.

Comment

Representation ID: 7002

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

The continuity of existing external space and dwelling standards is generally supported. The introduction of the optional NDSS to all new homes should accord with the provisions of the NPPF. IT should still allow for flexibility when a different solution might be required. This needs to be referenced in the policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 7003

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

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 the catchment area and may already be registered by the local healthcare provider. The requirement for CIL Reg compliance of any request should be clearly specified, especially in view of recent appeal decisions. The policy is unsound as it is neither justified not consistent with national policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 7004

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Richborough broadly supports the policy but it 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 must have regard to the tests of CIL Regulation 122, the policy should make this explicit. The policy is unsound as it is neither justified not consistent with national policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 7005

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Whilst there is no in principle objection to the requirements of the policy or the provision of open space within developments, some clarifications are required to make the policy sound. The requirement for on-site equipped play provision as default is not supported as it will not be appropriate for every site (e.g. duplication of high-quality equipped play). The provision of open space under HC17 will place further constraints on development and questions the ability to deliver sufficient homes across the Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 7006

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

The focus of Green Infrastructure provision should be based on quality rather than quantity. The policy text cites landscape buffers as an example of incidental GI which may be excluded – this is not appropriate as landscape buffers can be of a significant size and clearly contribute towards open space provision on site. The overly prescriptive wording of the policy should be revisited to ensure the policy takes a more flexible approach to open space provision. The policy is unsound as it is neither justified not consistent with national policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 7008

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

The emphasis should be on establishing deficiencies in existing sports and playing pitch provision, and a requirement for any additional provision alongside the proposed development having regard to the tests of the CIL Regulations, rather than making a blanket assumption that all major developments will be required to make a contribution. It is noted that further guidance will be provided in an Open Space, Sport and Recreation SPD, but no further quantitative details are provided to set out the detail of what will be expected within the Publication Plan.