Publication Plan April 2024

Comment

Representation ID: 5695

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Satisfied that the Plan period presently meets the test of soundness. However, the plan period should be kept under review in case there is slippage to the expected timescales for plan adoption. If the Plan period does need to be extended, the Council should explore the potential for increasing the capacity of the allocated sites to address any increase in the housing requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 5696

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Mismatch between the pool of employment opportunities in the District and the working age population. There is also a mismatch between existing housing stock and future housing need.

'The Issues and Challenges for South Staffordshire’ section of the Plan should be re-drafted to reflect the fact that the housing and employment requirements are an opportunity for the local economy.

Object

Representation ID: 5697

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Local Plan fails to remove land from the Green Belt and safeguard it for development in order to ensure that the Green Belt is not continually reviewed through each Local Plan review.

Policy DS1 should confirm that safeguarded land has been identified for future development to ensure that Green Belt boundaries endure beyond the plan period in accordance with provisions of paragraph 148 of the Framework. Additional sites should be safeguarded accordingly for this purpose. Our client’s land at Pattingham could be included within the list of safeguarded sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5698

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Additional development should be directed towards the sustainable settlements, including the tier 1, 2 and 3 villages in order to ensure that the housing is directed towards sustainable locations to supporting existing services and facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 5699

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy HC1 is overly prescriptive . Policy HC1 should not impose a minimum requirement that 70% of dwellings on new housing schemes should be 3 bedrooms or less.

The Council’s HMA considers the mix requirements for the South Staffordshire element of the housing requirement only, not the Black Country and Birmingham’s.

We object to the suggestion that S.106 agreements will be used to secure the mix of outline planning applications.

Object

Representation ID: 5700

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy should be revised. The first paragraph in the
policy should be retained and the remaining sections should be deleted.

The policy is a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut as the need can be addressed through windfall sites. There is unlikely to be a take-up of self-build plots on large housing
estates

Object

Representation ID: 5701

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy HC12 should be revised. The requirement for internal space standards should be removed until a full and proper localised evidence is produced to demonstrate they are necessary. If the policy is to remain, it should make it clear that some flexibility to the policy may be applied depending on the individual merits of the development proposal.

Internal Space Standards Topic Paper does not justify the
requirement for use of space standards. Local Plans should not simply require all developments to provide NDSS housing. They should identify how many properties are required to be NDSS and the policies should seek to deliver this amount.

Object

Representation ID: 5702

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy NB6 should be removed as it will jeopardise the deliverability and viability of residential schemes.This policy is unnecessary as the proper framework for delivering carbon reduction is through the Building Regulations legislative framework.

Policy NB6 requires a 10% improvement to the Part L 2021 Target for Fabric Energy Efficiency. However, that
benchmark standard is already out of date and is replaced by the introduction of the 2022 changes to the Part L Building Regulations; those changes achieve the 10 %
improvement which is referenced in policy NB6. Developers will not be able to comply with the post occupation monitoring requirement at policy NB6 A7. It will be extremely difficult to access that data from individual households over a 5 year period post occupation. We consider, therefore, that this part of the policy is not deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 5703

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Spatial Housing Strategy identified in Table 8 is flawed. May need to increase housing requirement with additional development required across the settlement hierarchy to meet the increased housing target.. Additional development should be directed towards Pattingham.

Comment

Representation ID: 5704

Received: 03/05/2024

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Whilst we support the identification of land at Hall End Farm for residential development, The Housing Site Proforma should be amended. The site area should be quoted as 0.7 Hectares and the minimum capacity should be changed from 17 dwellings to c15 dwellings.

The site should be enlarged reflecting Pattingham as a sustainable settlement, the site specific credentials and there being no known constraints to development of the site. In the event that Allocation 251 is not enlarged we invite the council to remove the site from the Green Belt and identify it as safeguarded land.