Publication Plan April 2024

The following modifications should be made to ensure that Policy MA1 is clearly written and unambiguous and that the policy is effective.
• The policy should allow for the approval of SMPs through the application process where an application has been submitted for any part of a strategic allocation.
• The policy should also clarify that SMPs should broadly align with the scope of Concept Plans, but that technical assessments should fundamentally drive them.
• Clause I should remove reference to ‘provably popular’ Design Codes.

The policy should make clear that the Concept Plan is only a concept, and should make clear that the SMP, which is informed by technical assessments, holds greater weight and may identify that specific elements of the Concept Plan are not appropriate / feasible / deliverable. Policy SA2 should be amended accordingly, and should make clear that the technical assessments of the site are determinative.

The policy requirements should be amended as follows:
• Clause A should be amended to require “a residential capacity reflecting an efficient use of land that responds to the site’s characteristics and the surrounding context, expected to be approximately 1,000 homes, including affordable housing and a specialist elderly housing element (e.g. sheltered or extra care) of at least 40 units in accordance with other policies within the local plan.”
• Clause B should be amended to require a new first school site of 1.2 hectares, reflecting the feedback received from SCC Education.
• Clause B should be amended to require “small-scale, flexible community space (either on-site or contributions, as appropriate).”
• Clause E should be amended to seek “the provision of sports pitches of a type and size justified by up-to-date evidence and engagement with the local community.”
• Reference to the Concept Plan should be removed from Clause G.
• Reference to the delivery of a large central green space should be removed from Clause G.
• The requirement for the delivery of “additional compensatory Green Belt improvements” should be removed from Clause G as the site does not fall within the designated Green Belt.
• Clause H should be removed and the requirement for mitigatory planting could be subsumed into Clause G.
• Clause I should be amended to refer to how necessary contributions should be provided towards “offsite infrastructure, including highways and active travel mitigation measures, education, leisure, health and potentially community facilities (if not provided on-site).”
• The policy should also refer to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and clarify that contributions must be demonstrated as being CIL Regulation 122 compliant.
• The IDP should be amended to reflect the above comments.