Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 5381

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy refers to proposed developments 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 a catchment area and may indeed already be registered by the local health care provider, thereby not creating a net additional burden.
Careful analysis is required therefore with regard to the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new patients, before reaching a conclusion as to what any CIL Regulation 122 compliant financial request might be. The requirement for CIL Reg compliance of any request should be clearly specified within policy.
The policy is considered unsound without amendment, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5382

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development. However, any such provision to be delivered by a S106 agreement, must have regard to the tests of CIL Regulation 122. The policy should make this explicit. In this regard, the policy should also recognise new infrastructure will be required from new development, only where it can be demonstrated that existing capacity to accommodate growth does not currently exist.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5383

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We note that the policy commits the Council to work with and support infrastructure providers and also offers policy support for this. Any assessment of cumulative impact and mitigation requested must be proportionate and CIL Regulation 122 compliant. The policy should be explicit that this is the case.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5384

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Persimmon Homes are generally supportive of the need to address net losses to Biodiversity, through the provision of enhancement to deliver and overall net gain. The Council’s policy requirement to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, reflects that of the Environment Act and is not objected to.
In delivering net gain, however, the policy needs to provide as much flexibility as possible. The key test of policy is whether the 10% BNG is being delivered, not necessarily the specific method by which it is delivered.
In this regard, certain aspects of the policy would benefit from clarification. Subsection a) for example, discusses ‘maintaining and enhance existing habitats’ on development sites as a priority. It has to be questioned, however, that where sites are allocated for delivery, whether such a goal is achievable. Certainly, it is good practice to retain where possible, hedgerows, mature trees and other key ecological assets. However, for the policy to indicate that habitat protection on site is a priority, over matters such as high-quality urban design, or delivery of any of a raft of other local plan policies, gives this specific element of policy delivery an undue prominence.
The policy would benefit from some limited re-wording (replace ‘as a priority’ with ‘where possible’ for example) to provide a more balanced and practical response to achieving the necessary 10% BNG delivery.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5385

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concern is raised with some of the technical detail raised in Policy NB6. Clause 3 regarding embodied carbon.
Whilst Persimmon fully appreciate the value of Whole Life-Cycle Carbon assessments and the need for some form of post construction, pre-occupation assessment, there is concern raised about this policy. Firstly, once sold the properties will be owned by the purchasers and their mortgagees. There are issues of data protection and consent surrounding the recording and sharing of energy use, air quality an overheating risk data by Persimmon, with a third party, in respect of properties that they will not own.
Secondly, a question arises as to the purpose of such widespread collation of such data. It will not be possible to post factum make alterations to the constructed buildings, so what is the benefit or purpose of such a significant amount of data collation? If the purpose is to inform and advise as to future construction methods, then this could be equally achieved by an informed and targeted research exercise by organisations such as the BRE in advising Governments and through amendments to building regulations. Extracting, what is in effect lifestyle data, from private individuals, is neither considered desirable nor practical in this regard.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Council have considered or addressed the GDPR implications of this requirement, its effect on ‘mortgage-ability’, or indeed its effect on sales values. Presumably properties which are wired to share private individual’s lifestyle data, would be less attractive in the market place, and that would be reflected in reduced sales values. This element of the policy is not practical to be delivered in the form proposed, and is therefore considered unsound, on the grounds of being neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.