Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 5233

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Wrottesley Park Road
Landscape Study
Site assessed in SAD as having a ‘low impact’. Current Landscape Study has assessed site as moderate. Not understood how landscape sensitivity of the site has increased.

Object

Representation ID: 5234

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Wrottesley Park Road
Rural Services and Facilities Audit
It is considered that Perton benefits from ‘medium’ access to employment opportunities rather than ‘low’. Perton has frequent bus service to Wolverhampton.

Comment

Representation ID: 5235

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are broadly supportive of the proposed housing density of 35 dwellings per hectare but feel that this policy should give some reference to best and most effective use of the land, to ensure efficient housing delivery where it is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 5236

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We understand that our client would be able to support in excess of a policy compliant 30% affordable housing on site.
We consider that in relation to the proposed 25% shared ownership and 25% first homes tenures, there should be some flexibility given here as it allows affordable rent to be substituted against shared ownership. To not include or indicate this within the policy would, in our view make the policy inconsistent with NPPF para 82.

Object

Representation ID: 5237

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to the wording of Policy HC4 where it states the following:
‘All major developments will also be required to ensure 100% of both the market and affordable housing meets the higher access standards Part M4(2) Category 2’

To require all major developments to meet the higher access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 could have significant financial viability implications. This policy also does not seem to account for the redevelopment of (for instance) listed buildings, as in many cases it will not be possible to meet the access standards of Part M4(2) Category 2 within the confines of a listed building without
resulting in a detrimental impact or due to spatial restrictions. We therefore consider that this policy should be reconsidered to take into account more constrained sites where this would not be possible, or where viability would indicate that flexibility should be applied.

If such flexibility is not written into this policy, we consider it would be inconsistent with NPPF para 82.

Object

Representation ID: 5238

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Whilst we are broadly supportive of this policy, we consider that smaller housing sites need to be better defined. Given that Rural Exception Sites are delivered on the basis of local need, this policy assumes that sites can only be small, which runs contrary to the NPPF which does not stipulate
such sites should be small.
Paragraph 78 states that ‘In rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs. Local planning authorities should support opportunities to bring forward rural exception sites that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs, and consider whether allowing some market housing on these sites would help to facilitate this.’
We therefore do not consider that this is consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5239

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy HC8 talks about major developments but we have two concerns over this. Firstly, incorporating self and/or custom build into larger residential schemes is unlikely to meet the need for this type of accommodation because the very reason why many self and custom builders want
to go down that route is because they do not want to live on large developments. Secondly, if the emerging Plan does continue with this approach then it needs to give a percentage requirement of self-build/custom-build plots. We consider that the policy is vague and would benefit from clarification, given how precise the council have been about the proportion of affordable housing,
for instance.
In light of the fact that the council are under an obligation to maintain a custom and self-build register, it should be clear what the requirements are and how a policy could address this appropriately.

Object

Representation ID: 5240

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We have considered Policy HC10 and note that there is a lack of reference to character areas in major sites, so this should be given greater emphasis. We also consider that the policy needs to be supportive of flexible approaches to planning applications (such as a hybrid outline) now that the
Hillside Judgement2 has been released.
The Hillside Judgment reaffirms the ‘Pilkington principle’. This establishes that where a
development has already been built in accordance with and under a first permission, the ability to lawfully implement a second permission on part of the same defined site is dependent on whether it is physically possible to carry out that second permission based on what has already been carried out in the first permission. This occurrence is sometimes referred to as a ‘drop-in permission’.
With regard to point J in Policy HC10. – ‘Gives safe and convenient ease of movement to all users prioritising pedestrians and cycle users’ This point should include the requirements for developments to be adequately lit to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users.
In order to be considered consistent with para 82 of the NPPF, this policy requires greater flexibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 5241

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are widely supportive of this policy but consider that outlook also needs to be covered to consider the impact of development proposals on neighbouring living conditions. Furthermore, there should be some consideration within the policy of to the potential for overheating, under part O of Building Regs.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/10
57374/ADO.pdf

Object

Representation ID: 5242

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We note that this policy mentions outlook and mentions a garden area ratio under ‘external space’. However, has this been tested against the proposed net densities of 35 dwellings per hectare?
We also feel that the suggested 21m distance between dwellings from principal elevations should be subject to further review because it could result in excessively wide streets which may affect developments achieving net density targets. Moreover, it would not accommodate the sorts of street hierarchies that would typically be advocated in larger developments with multiple
character areas. Furthermore, such separation distances could result in wide carriageways appearing over dominant throughout schemes.
We consider the policy, as worded, would be contrary to para 130 of the NPPF which states that 'Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments … (d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;’