Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 5283

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Requirement that 70% of properties should be 3 bed or less is restrictive and inflexible, contrary to NPPF para 62 requirement to provide a range of size, type and tenure. The use of the phrase ‘disproportionate’ in the penultimate paragraph lacks precision and clarity. Needs and demands will vary from site to site, requirements should be subject to a viability assessment thus allowing for flexibility.

Clarify the definition of ‘major’ development. This should reference the DMPO definition for the avoidance of doubt.

Support

Representation ID: 5284

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support recognition that a blanket approach is unlikely to be effective.

Object

Representation ID: 5285

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Define ‘major residential development’. Policy also needs to ensure that evidence is provided when considering viability particularly on brownfield sites. Affordable housing policies should take account of viability and deliverability as well as need. A differentiated policy approach should be used as set out in the viability study.

If requirements for implementing policy are known now then these should be included within the plan, the SPD is not the appropriate document for setting new policy and or burdens on delivery. The Plan should provide clarity at the point of adoption as to what it requires.

Support

Representation ID: 5286

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Pepper pot approach to affordable housing generally supported but should recognise that for management purposes Registered Providers do require a degree of clustering.

Use of s106 agreements to secure necessary infrastructure and the removal of the suggestion re: grant funding for homes.

Object

Representation ID: 5287

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

No definition of older people therefore unclear who the policy is targeting and who would be eligible. The council do not define what ages will be restricted to single storey development.

Specialist housing often needs minimum critical mass (e.g. critical care and retirement living often require 60+ rooms to be viable). Evidence therefore required to support minimum site size capable of supporting such provision. Need clarity on when such housing types will be required as part of a major development and what types may be required on any given site.

Requirement for all housing to be M4(2) compliant may cause affordability issues. This is not yet a statutory requirement and therefore needs to be justified with reference to both need and cost.

Object

Representation ID: 5288

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Clarify the requirement about having regard to the self build register that this applies only to part 1 of the register. Policy should also recognise that delivery of self build successfully occurs when there is a distinct phasing or grouping of plots.

Support

Representation ID: 5289

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support the provision for developer to build a standard housing unit on any un-sold self-build plot after twelve months.

Object

Representation ID: 5290

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The provision of tree lined streets should be subject to highway authority agreement.

Delete reference to house types and tenures as this is repetition of material in policy HC1.

Object

Representation ID: 5291

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Certain house types, for example M4(2) dwellings should have smaller, more manageable gardens.

Introduce some flexibility into application of Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) as occasional non-compliance may be appropriate for sound urban design reasons.

Should Nationally Described Space Standards be pursued then the Council need to provide additional evidence to demonstrate the policy is sound. Taking account of the following issues:
-evidence should ensure that impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed e.g. impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
-viability impacts including on affordability
-timing of implementation to enable developers time to factor cost of standards into future land acquisitions.

The HMA does not provide any justification or evidence for requiring NDSS in the District.

Support

Representation ID: 5304

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support proposed parking standards and particularly reductions in on site parking where developments well served by public transport. It is noted that council’s estimate for costs per EVCP is lower than the Government’s cost estimate and excludes costs for upgrading local networks.