Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 4965

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The PPG states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The NPPF also requires all policies to be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence which should be adequate, proportionate and focused on supporting and justifying planning policies (paragraph 31). The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005-20150327 to 56-011-20150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards which includes:
• the likely future need;
• the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed;
• the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock;
• variations in needs across different housing tenures: and
• viability.
The PPG (Reference ID: 56-008-20160519) also states that when adopting accessibility standards, “Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied” [Savills emphasis]. Policy HC4 makes no provision for the PPG exceptions.

Support

Representation ID: 4966

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Policy HC8 states that major developments will be required to have regard to the need on the council’s self-build register, and make provision of self and custom build plots to reflect this. Barratt supports the flexible approach being proposed in this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4967

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Part c of Policy HC10 states that all developments will be required to incorporate tree lined streets. We consider that the policy should be worded as set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 131 states that “planning policies…should ensure that new streets are tree-lined” with footnote 50 adding “unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate”. In order to be consistent with national policy (NPPF paragraph 35), Policy HC9 should be amended to refer to situations where tree-lined streets may not be appropriate. Barratt’s experience on a number of current housing developments is that Highways Authorities are not always supportive of tree-lined streets particularly in relation to the long-term management of the highways trees.
Part e states that proposals should use “bespoke house types to avoid a monotonous visual appearance”. It is unclear what is meant from that but on major development schemes delivered by national housebuilders, providing all bespoke house types is not achievable or reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 4968

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy requires all new dwellings to meet Nationally Described Space Standards. Where a need for internal space standards is identified, the PPG (Reference ID: 56-020-20150327) requires Councils to take account of the need for the standards, the potential impact on viability and the timing of introducing the standards. We objected to this policy in our Preferred Options representations as no evidence was provided to justify these standards. SSDC has now produced an Internal Space Standards Topic Paper (November 2022). We have no further comments on this requirement within the policy.

The policy also proposes very specific garden area and distance requirements. Although private amenity space and distances between dwellings are not addressed within the internal space standards guidance, there is a national requirement to make the most effective use of land (NPPF Chapter 11). We consider that the Council should have to justify the requirement for these specific standards and the potential impact of this policy on proposed housing yields.

Object

Representation ID: 4969

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy states that “smaller areas of incidental green infrastructure without a clear recreational purpose (e.g. landscape buffers, highways verges) and areas without public access will not count towards meeting the quantitative on-site open space standard”. No definition is provided as to what constitutes ‘small’ nor how applicants can demonstrate that it serves a purpose. SSDC has also not provided any information to justify why small areas of green infrastructure will not be regarded as part of the open space provision. Landscape buffers, highways verges and other small areas of green space, may not be ‘useable’ from a recreation perspective but they provide visual benefits for residents and place-making as well connecting green infrastructure across sites and with the wider network. This policy will just encourage applicants to provide green infrastructure across sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 4970

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Policy NB2 states that 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is required for all major developments. It is considered that our clients land (site reference 500) will be able to demonstrate at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain if it were released from the Green Belt and allocated for development.

Object

Representation ID: 4971

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy NB4 proposes to amend the adopted Landscape Character policy to strengthen the protection of trees and hedgerows. The NPPF protects ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees (paragraph 180c), there is no national requirement to protect all trees. However, that being said, we understand the important contribution trees can make to the character of an area. We consider that the policy should seek to protect ancient and veteran trees unless there are wholly exceptional reasons to justify their removal. Trees classified as Category A or B should be protected ‘where possible’. We do not consider that Category C or U trees should be afforded any specific protection within the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4972

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy states that major developments must achieve a minimum 63% reduction in carbon emissions for each dwelling by on-site measures compared to UK Building Regulations through fabric and energy efficiency measures as well as on-site renewable energy regeneration. These requirements are considered to be over and above the requirements of PPG which states that Local Plans “can set energy performance standards for new housing or the adaptation of buildings to provide dwellings, that are higher than the building regulations, but only up to the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes” (Reference ID: 6-012- 20190315).
The Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Topic Paper (November 2022) states that the requirement to not exceed Level 4 standards is not set out in the NPPF (paragraph 7.3). The Topic Paper (paragraph 7.3) goes on to make assumptions on whether standards above the Part L Building Regulations can been used and reference is made to other local authorities who have adopted policies above level 4 standards (although the names of the authorities have not been quoted). Barratt does not agree with the assumptions made by SSDC within the Topic Paper. Firstly, although the Level 4 standards may not be specifically quoted within the NPPF, in order to be “consistent with national policy” and sound, plans are required to accord with the NPPF and “other statements of national planning policy” (NPPF paragraph 35d). The PPGs is national guidance and therefore the inclusion of Reference ID: 6-012-20190315, is relevant. Secondly, plans are examined on a case by case basis. Therefore, other plans may have been found sound with policies requiring energy performance above the Part L standards but this should not mean that every local plan can propose requirements which are contrary to national guidance.
The PPG also states that if a Council is “considering policies on local requirements for the sustainability of other buildings, local planning authorities will wish to consider if there are nationally described standards and the impact on viability of development” (Reference ID: 6- 009-20150327). The Viability Study 2022 has assumed a +7% increase on build costs for houses and +4% build cost for flats to meet these targets. Given Policy NB6 is proposing requirements much greater than existing regulations, further clarity is sought on the assumptions made in the Viability Study and where the costs have been taken from. As presented we consider the evidence to be unjustified and inconsistent with national guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4977

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Paragraph 143 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) requires plans to demonstrate that that the revised Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. SSDC is not proposing to safeguard any land for development and given the significant shortfalls arising from the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (‘GBBCHMA’) (discussed further in our response to Policy DS4), we consider it is very likely that SSDC will need to review their Local Plan in the short term to accommodate more growth for the GBBCHMA. 80% of the District is Green Belt (Table 5 of the Publication Plan) and so future Green Belt release is considered to be inevitable to meet housing needs as required in this plan period. Barratt therefore considers that the plan is not consistent with national policy (NPPF Paragraph 35c).

Object

Representation ID: 4978

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS2 states that Green Belt compensatory improvements will be delivered as part of future applications on development sites which have been removed from the Green Belt and allocated in the plan. This aligns with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 142. However, Policy DS2 does not provide any detail on the type or scale of compensatory improvements required. Any requirement should accord with the wording of the Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) which states that policies for green belt compensatory improvements should be “informed by supporting evidence of landscape, biodiversity or recreational needs and opportunities” [Savills emphasis] (Reference ID: 64-002-20190722). Compensatory improvements should not necessarily have to improve access, landscape and biodiversity.
The Policy states that compensatory improvements will be delivered in accordance with a hierarchy, with the preferred approach being on land adjacent to or in close proximity to the development site. National policy requires plans and decision making to make effective use of land (chapter 11 of the NPPF) and NPPF paragraph 143 requires plans to demonstrate that the Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. Most Green Belt release is on land immediately adjacent to settlement boundaries and primarily in highly sustainable and accessible locations. Therefore, it is important that the provision of Green Belt compensation near these sites should not be proposed on land which could be more suitable for development in the future.