Publication Plan November 2022

Support

Representation ID: 5138

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

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 most. This would also accommodate the need for higher density development within certain ‘character areas’ of larger multi-phase developments.

Object

Representation ID: 5139

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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: 5140

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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.

Support

Representation ID: 5141

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

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.’

Object

Representation ID: 5142

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy HC8 talks about major developments but does not 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: 5143

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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 as it will be sought by the council in any case.

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 Judgement 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 caried 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, in our view, 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.

Support

Representation ID: 5144

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

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. There could be many sites proposed for allocation that could be noisy. Noise mitigation in many new homes involves mechanical venting and windows that do not open. This has implications for overheating in some cases.

Object

Representation ID: 5145

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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 or more?

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, creating a poor environment with a lack of a sense of place.

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;’

Object

Representation ID: 5146

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are supportive of this policy, but what is the formula to calculate open space provision requirements and has this been considered by the viability study? We consider that this should be included as part of the policy or in an Annex to the main document. This should be made available before the plan is submitted for examination.

Object

Representation ID: 5147

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In relation to the 4000-home contribution towards unmet housing needs of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area, we are supportive of this, but the figure should be dis aggregated between Birmingham and the Black Country.

We also consider that the tier 2 settlements should be subject to an increased level of allocation. In order to deliver housing quickly (particularly in light of the delays to the delivery of this plan) there should be an increase in the number of smaller, less strategic allocations to deliver within the initial phase of the plan period in order to ensure the council can initially achieve and then maintain a healthy supply of housing land.