Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6788

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Taylor Wimpey would wish to raise concerns that the proposed direction of travel appears overly prescriptive with all market housing proposals to include 70% of properties to comprise three bedrooms or less.

Object

Representation ID: 6789

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The SHMA utilises a long-term balancing housing market (LTBHM) model to determine future demand for housing. Taylor Wimpey would question whether this model does actually determine demand rather than need. The demand is often for a larger open market property than a household may need to provide additional flexibility e.g. working from home. Therefore, the approach to capping the percentage of larger homes, particularly open market homes, fails to provide a good level of flexibility to allow for changing market signals across the plan period or to address varying needs in different locations within the District.

Object

Representation ID: 6790

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is considered that a specific requirement for bungalows is not appropriate if instead the Council pursues a policy of requiring 100% of all homes to meet optional M4(2) requirements. The Government has consulted on raising accessibility standards for new homes but the requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards is yet to be mandated. If the Council intends to pursue a policy in respect of M4(2) this must be evidenced. It is also not clear why the figures in the SHMA have altered so significantly in such a short space of time. The policy should be amended to require a maximum of 30% of all new homes to be delivered to meet M4(2) standards.

Object

Representation ID: 6792

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concern is raised that the emerging requirements appear to provide no flexibility with regards to a site’s context. Distance/accessibility isochrones are not identified within the policy for different open space typologies such as LEAPs and LAPs to ensure open space infrastructure and are presumably left to a future Open Space, Sport and Recreation SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 6793

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Our client objects to NB1. There is no national requirement to afford all sites which meet the criteria for designation, with the same protection as if it were designated. We therefore consider that the policy should seek to protect only local designated sites.

Object

Representation ID: 6794

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

NB2 states that “consideration must be given to the aims and objectives of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy”. The LNRS is currently being developed by Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Therefore, the document has not yet been published and no public consultation has been undertaken on the document. NB2 has not been informed by up to date information and shaped by evidence and is therefore not justified or consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6795

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

NB4 proposes to amend the adopted Landscape Character policy to strengthen the protection of trees and hedgerows, but does not differentiate between different categories of trees. The Council has not provided any evidence to justify why ‘all’ trees should be afforded the same protection. In order to be consistent with national policy NB4 should align with NPPF paragraph 186c and only seek to protect ancient and veteran trees unless there are wholly exceptional reasons to justify their removal.

Object

Representation ID: 6796

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We object to NB6A as it goes beyond national requirements. Extracts from the Written Ministerial Statement can be found in the full representation. Given NB6A is proposing requirements much greater than existing regulations, further clarity is sought on the assumptions made in the Viability Study and where the costs have been taken from. NB6A should be amended to reflect current national requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 6797

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We object to NB6C and it is onerous and not justified. Extract from the Ministerial Statement in the full representation. It is considered that the plan should only require development to comply with current or planned building regulations.

Object

Representation ID: 6798

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land at Cross Green was identified in the Preferred Options and 2022 Publication Plan to deliver residential-led growth to meet the unmet need of the GBBCHMA, with the most significant infrastructure benefit being a major new access road from the A449 to ROF Featherstone strategic employment site. ROF Featherstone was first allocated in the 1996 Local Plan and was proposed for re-allocation in the emerging plan, the key constraint was access. SSDC’s removal of the Cross Green allocation makes no reference on the ROF Featherstone access being taken through the site and the potential implications on the delivery of ROF Featherstone. Taylor Wimpey support the re-allocation of ROF Featherstone where the draft allocation on Land at Cross Green is also included to deliver the highways infrastructure and homes to serve the jobs being created.