Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6213

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Should make specific reference to the CIL Regulation 122 tests for planning obligations to ensure that any requests for financial contributions towards infrastructure are appropriately justified, lawful and comply with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6214

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Should make specific reference to the CIL Regulation 122 tests for planning obligations to ensure that any requests for financial contributions towards infrastructure are appropriately justified, lawful and comply with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6215

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Should make specific reference to the CIL Regulation 122 tests for planning obligations to ensure that any requests for financial contributions towards infrastructure are appropriately justified, lawful and comply with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6216

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy should be amended should allow for equipped play provision off site in circumstances where there is existing public open space or play facilities available on public open space within walking distance of the site that would benefit from either: i) new equipped play provision; or ii) the expansion and/or improvement of existing play equipment through financial contributions.

Object

Representation ID: 6217

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy should be amended to recognise that the opportunities to maximise sustainable transport will vary between urban and rural areas. The Policy should also be amended to make it clear that only “significant impacts” should be mitigated to an acceptable degree in accordance with Paragraph 114 of the NPPF. The requirement for a Transport Statement is also inconsistent with Paragraph 117 of the NPPF which states that transport statements are only required where developments will general significant amounts of movement. The Policy should be amended accordingly. The Policy proposes to require proposals to adhere to the standards within LTN120. However, LTN1/20 is a guidance document not policy. Rigid application of LTN1/20 as policy rather than guidance is inflexible and inappropriate and could impact on the delivery of much needed housing in the District. Policy EC12 should, therefore, be amended to encourage compliance with LTN1/20 where possible. Part D of draft Policy EC12 is poorly worded and inconsistent with the NPPF which simply states that rights of way should be protected and enhanced. The wording should be amended to provide clarity and consistency with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6218

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The draft policy is inconsistent with national policy. For example, the proposed test for development proposals which directly or indirectly affect nationally designated sites, including SSSIs, where the policy is inconsistent with Paragraph 186 of the NPPF. The policy should be amended accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 6219

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The reference to “all development must provide a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain” is unnecessary, given that this now set out in the Environment Act Legislation and accompanying national guidance.The draft wording of Policy NB2 includes inconsistencies with the statutory framework, for example, the reference to habitats being secured in perpetuity. This is inconsistent with the statutory framework and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 6220

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The wording of this policy is inconsistent with that contained in NPPF which specifically talks about “protecting and enhancing valued landscapes”. It does not talk about maintaining and enhancing landscapes in general. The reference to ‘protecting and retaining’ “all trees, woodland and hedgerows” is also unjustified and inconsistent with national policy and guidance. The wording of this policy should be amended or the relevant sections deleted to ensure consistency with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 6221

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It has not been robustly demonstrated that the proposals to require carbon emission reductions through energy efficiency measures beyond those in Building Regulations would not impact on viability, housing supply and affordability. The policy is not, therefore, justified and should be deleted.Council’s evidence indicates that the proposed net zero carbon policy requirements in Policy NB6A would equate to a 7.2% build cost uplift. However, the ‘Appraisal Summaries’ at Appendix II of the Viability Study only appear to have allowed for 5.7% build cost uplift.

Notwithstanding the above, the wording of Part A1 and A2 of Policy NB6A is also inflexible and does not allow for a scenario where it can be demonstrated that meeting the standards specified is not technically feasible or viable in accordance with the requirements of the WMS. If this policy is to be retained, then the wording of Part A1 and A2 requires amendment to provide the necessary flexibility.

Evidence to support section A4 suggests that offsetting does not need to be considered in viability assessments because the price is equal to the cost of on-site measures and so does not represent an additional cost to the developer. However, no evidence is provided to back up this statement. There is, therefore, in Crest’s view a risk that Part A4 of Policy NB6A could undermine the delivery of housing in the District. In the absence of appropriate justification, this element of Policy NB6A should be deleted.Notwithstanding the above, the policy does not set out how offsetting contributions would be calculated and how contributions would be used, instead deferring to Paragraph 13.11 of the supporting text. If the requirement for offsetting is to be retained this should be set out in the Policy itself. If the requirement for offsetting is to be retained, the Policy should be amended to allow carbon emissions to be offset to the greatest extent that is viable.

Part A5 of Policy NB6A requires an “assured performance method” to be implemented throughout all phases of construction. However, there is no definition in either the draft Policy or the supporting text over what is meant by this. This requires clarification to ensure that the policy is clearly written and unambiguous.

Part A7 unduly onerous and entirely unrealistic, and should be removed in its entirety.

Object

Representation ID: 6222

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy NB6C part C1. Refers to ‘embodied carbon’ but then encourages developers to use the RICS ‘Whole Life Carbon Assessment’. This should be amended to clarify the requirements of the policy as embodied carbon and whole life carbon are two different analysis.

The Council proposes in part C2. of the policy that developers must limit embodied carbon to a specific quantum for development over 50 dwellings. It is not clear how the the limit of 550 kg C02 / m2 GIA is justified as there is no reference to this figure in the original Bioregional Report. Whilst the Bioregional Addendum Report suggests that achieving embodied carbon limit of 550k C02 / m2 GIA ought to be ‘cost-neutral’ it does not appear to provide any evidence to back up this statement. Crest is, therefore, concerned that the proposed embodied carbon target is not justified and that there is a risk that the proposed embodied carbon target could impact on the delivery of housing and plan viability.

The Policy is also inflexible (i.e. does not allow for scenarios where achieving the embodied carbon target is not feasible or financially viable). The Policy should be amended to provide flexibility in the event that achieving the proposed standard is not feasible or financially viable.