Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 5338

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy HC3 requires proposal for major residential development to provide 30% of all dwellings as affordable housing. The use of the term 'major residential development' in this context requires a definition to save confusion as to what size of development affordable
housing becomes a requirement, it is presumed to be the same as that within the NPPF Glossary. The policy also needs to ensure that evidence is provided when considering viability, especially when looking at brownfield sites.
The requirement for 30% affordable housing appears to be supported by the Viability Study Stage 2 Report 2022 (VA) which confirms at paragraph 3.2.7 that the proposed
affordable housing figure is appropriate for South Staffordshire.
The Council’s position to continue with the established approach of using Section 106 planning obligations to secure the necessary infrastructure to support and mitigate the effects of new development is supported.
The requirement to 'pepper pot' affordable housing in clusters across the development is generally supported. However, the policy should recognise that for management purposes, Registered Providers do require a degree of clustering of affordable housing within a
development and this will inform site layouts.
The frequent reference to further guidance being provided by the Affordable Housing SPD
is noted. The SPD should do no more than clarify the Local Plan policy and it is suggested
that if the requirements for implementing the policy are known to need explanation now then these should either be included within the Plan now or set out within the explanatory text. The SPD is not the appropriate approach for setting new policy and or burdens on
delivery, and the Plan should provide clarity at the point of adoption as to what it requires.

Object

Representation ID: 5339

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

St Philips supports the introduction of a new set of requirements to ensure high quality design and the creation of beautiful places in line with Government guidance. However, a number of specific comments are made on the policy as drafted:
• The provision of tree lined streets (item c) should be subject to highway authority agreement, and where appropriate, their adoption. In St Philips’ experience, local
highway authorities do not want trees in immediate proximity of the street due to management concerns or liabilities.
• The point on house types and tenures (item l) is repetition of policy material set out at Policy HC1 and is therefore unnecessary.

Object

Representation ID: 5340

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The continuity of existing external space and dwellings standards is generally supported although there should be a recognition that certain house types, for example Part M4(2) dwellings, should have smaller, more manageable gardens.
The requirement that all dwellings should meet Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) is generally supported but some flexibility must be allowed in its application as occasionally non-compliance with NDSS may be appropriate for sound urban design reasons and the Policy should therefore build in some flexibility.
Notwithstanding, if the NDSS requirement is to be pursued then the Council need to provide additional evidence for the Local Plan Examination to demonstrate that the policy is sound. National Planning Guidance Housing: optional technical standards (paragraph
020) clearly states that “Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:
• Need – evidence should be provided in the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
• Viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.
• Timing - there may need to be a reasonable transition period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions.”

It is clear that the introduction of the NDSS requires a Local Plan policy which has been fully evidenced, justified and viability tested. The South Staffordshire Housing Market Assessment Update 2022 (HMA) refers to the NDSS (paragraph 7.32) only in the context of
assessing the need for accessible and adaptable homes. The HMA does not provide any justification or evidence for requiring NDSS in the District.

Object

Representation ID: 5341

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

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 health care facilities but fails to define what level of impact is deemed unacceptable or how that is to be measured. The policy should also 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 therefore required 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, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5342

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is broad support for the policy’s objective for the improvement or construction of schools to meet the demand generated by children in new development. However, as currently written, the policy makes a blanket assumption that new education infrastructure will be required from all new development.
The Policy text requires further clarification as 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: 5343

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there is no in principle objection to the requirements of the policy or the provision of open space within developments, some clarifications are required in order to ensure that the Policy is sound.
The policy requirement for on-site equipped play provision as default is not supported as it will not be appropriate for every site, for example where there is already high-quality equipped play provision in the locality it would not make sense to duplicate this provision.
In addition, it is not appropriate to require open space to be centrally located on all sites as this does not take into consideration differences in development sites opportunities and constraints. It is requested that the Council amend the policy to allow a more flexible
approach to achieve the right design solution for each site.
The focus of Green Infrastructure provision should be based on quality rather than quantity or ‘useability’ and the exclusion of small incidental green infrastructure (GI) without a clear recreational purpose from on-site open space provision is not supported. The policy text
cites landscape buffers as an example of incidental GI which may be excluded. This is not appropriate as landscape buffers can be of a significant size and clearly make a contribution towards open space provision on a site. They should therefore be included in these calculations. Planning Practice Guidance acknowledges that 'Green infrastructure can embrace a range of spaces and assets that provide environmental and wider benefits.
The policy should therefore be revisited and clarified, with clear reference to national guidance ensure that open space and green infrastructure is properly and clearly defined and to recognise the contribution that a range of spaces and uses will bring to a development.
The policy as drafted is unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy and is unjustified for the reasons set out above.

Comment

Representation ID: 5344

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy HC18 is informed by the playing pitch and sport facilities assessments produced by KKP in 2020 and is broadly supported.
It is noted that further guidance on the procedure for determining provision required from new development will be set out in an Open Space, Sport, and Recreation SPD. However, the policy requires all new major residential development to contribute towards sports facilities and playing pitches, but no further quantitative details are provided. It would be more appropriate for SSDC to define standards expected from development as part of policy (as per the open space standard defined by Policy HC17, for example). This approach provides
greater certainty in respect of the infrastructure delivery requirements expected from sites, which ultimately impacts upon their viability. The level of provision expected, and the associated viability implications should be considered within both the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Viability Assessment.
The requirements of delivering sports facilities and playing pitches through on-site provision or S106 contributions will have a direct impact on the viability of sites and the Council must ensure the delivery of all potential obligations are taken into account for both on and off site provision to support the soundness of the Plan at examination.

Comment

Representation ID: 5345

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

St Philips are 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. Indeed, it reflects one of the core principles of the NPPF to conserve and enhance the natural environment.
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. It is important that the way in which these ‘net gains’ are calculated is given careful consideration and that a pragmatic view is taken in terms of biodiversity enhancements, where there are clear landscape and habitat improvements, rather than being wholly reliant on the output of rigid calculator, in particular where this would impede the delivery of much needed housing.
In this regard, certain aspects of the policy would benefit from clarification. Subsection a) for example, discusses ‘maintaining and enhancing 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 5346

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy NB4 would benefit to an amendment in the text, which reflects the comments made on Policy NB2 above. As drafted, the second paragraph states:
"All trees, woodland, and hedgerows should be protected and retained"
Whilst it is appreciated that the following sentence identified that should a loss be required, appropriate mitigation measure must be delivered by the developer, the above sentence should be amended to the following:
"All trees, woodland and hedgerows should be protected and retained wherever possible".

Object

Representation ID: 5347

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Given that the Environment Act 2021 has recently been made into law, it needs to be made clear that this policy reflects the Act and its purpose and that it repeats the laws written within it.
Concern is raised with some of the technical detail raised in Policy NB6 - Clause 3 regarding embodied carbon.
Whilst St Philips 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 and overheating risk data with a third party, in respect of properties that the developer 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 possible in 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.