SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF LINDEN HOMES.

Transcription

1 MP Ref: NM/ February 2013 South Worcestershire Development Plan Team Orchard House Farrier Street Worcester WR1 3BB VIA ONLY Dear Sir or Madam: SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF LINDEN HOMES. McLoughlin Planning has been instructed to submit representations on the SWDP on behalf of Linden Homes. In terms of the representations submitted, attached to this letter (in the same ) is a Word Document containing the representations and outlining the concerns as to why the Plan is unsound, along with suggested amendments. This is accompanied by a Vision Document setting out Linden s development proposals in the village of Kempsey. In all cases, acting on behalf of Linden, I would like the opportunity to participate at the oral examination. This is because of serious concerns about the soundness of the plan to achieve the levels of development that are required. I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this . I look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully Nathan McLoughlin BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Director

2 land to the south of the lawns, kempsey Vision Statement September 2012

3

4 Contents INTRODUCTION 1 ABOUT LINDEN HOMES 2 SUSTAINABILITY 3 ABOUT THE SITE 5 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 6 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 8 CONSTRAINTS 9 SKETCH PROPOSALS 14 CONCLUSIONS 16

5

6 introduction This document considers the development potential of 4.8 ha of land to the south of The Lawns Nursing Homes, Kempsey, which is being promoted as a sustainable village extension by Linden Homes. Land included in this Vision Document has the benefit of being allocated for development in the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan for up to 138 dwellings. A consultant team, appointed by Linden Homes has assessed the overall suitability and capacity of the site for residential development. This document presents work completed to date, documenting the technical studies which show that the site is suitable for development. The consultant team comprises: McLOUGHLIN PLANNING 1

7 about linden homes Linden Homes is a highly respected builder of new homes and offers a distinctive and diverse range of new homes and properties throughout the country. Linden Homes has been part of the Galliford Try Group for many years, and previously the Group traded regionally with different brand names- Stamford Homes, Midas Homes, Rosemullion Homes and Gerald Wood Homes, specialising in bespoke, locally distinctive homes. In order to gain a national benefit from their regional expertise, and in a quest to be even better, they recently united all of their companies under the Linden Homes name with a new brand identity. This will help to further improve their customer service and homes, based upon a better understanding of what people want in their local communities. Their combined years of local and regional knowledge and experience help them to be better at what they do best. A national builder, building high quality bespoke homes, locally delivered. 2

8 sustainability Linden Homes has an enviable reputation for creating high quality bespoke homes that sit well in their surroundings. The majority of their developments have good links to major transport nodes. In 2011 nearly 80% of completed developments were within a kilometre of a major public transport link, and 64% were within ½ a kilometre. Linden Homes recognises that sustainability is about creating affordable, well-designed homes in viable dynamic communities. Technically and socially, sustainability sits at the heart of the regeneration agenda. They have set out their commitment to constructing a sustainable future in their environmental and corporate responsibility policy. Linden Homes recognise that costs for fossil fuels is only likely to increase, and that their use contributes to climate change. The importance to the planet in reducing fuel consumption is paramount, however the reduction in running costs due to improved energy efficiency is also one of the greatest advantages for customers when buying a new home. Linden Homes build their homes to be energy efficient by adopting a fabric first approach, and have been discussing this approach with Government. They also believe that allowing people to understand their energy use is vital to helping them be more efficient. So they have trialled smart meters on several schemes and await guidance from Government on their specification. Linden Homes also know that resources are becoming scarcer and more expensive so they encourage the use of environmentally friendly materials and features within the specification of all their homes including timber frame construction, renewable energy products like solar panels, wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and rainwater harvesters. Each home is built to aid in the reduction of running costs for their customers and will invest in their children's future, so they inherit both a cleaner planet, as well as sustainable homes. Linden Homes endeavours to improve on environmental standards which have been set by the government so that their customers end up with better performing homes that are cheaper to run than exisiting homes, and have a smaller impact on the world around us. The company uses high levels of insulation, is trialling green roofs and also improving the efficient use of water in its homes with dual flush toilets and aerated taps. Linden Homes customers tell them this is the right approach. In a recent survey conducted by Linden Homes 70% of the respondents said energy efficiency was a key feature attracting them to a new home. 3

9 site boundary remainder of allocation site location

10 the site The site Planning History Linden Homes' site is a flat site, approximately 3.6 ha. It is situated on the south-western side of Kempsey (edged red on the plan opposite) and forms part of a wider 4.8 ha allocation for housing development (edged blue). It comprises of an area of agricultural land and curtilage associated with The Lawns Care Home. Site boundaries include lines of mature trees (some covered by TPOs), hedgerows (especially on the southern boundary) to nothing at all (ref western boundary that has open views across the site). The Wider Context The site does not have an extensive planning history. Malvern Hills had granted planning permission for 8 houses on Old Road South. Otherwise, the land has not been the subject of any notable planning applications. In terms of development plan planning history, analysis of the Malvern Hills Local Plan Inspector s Report shows that land controlled by The Lawns Care Home was subject to representations seeking an amendment to the settlement boundary to include the curtilage of The Lawns. Otherwise, there was no promotion of the wider Appraisal site through the last Local Plan for development. Kempsey is a village situated on the A38, to the south of Worcester. It has a range of facilities and services, including retail, primary school, playing fields and public houses. All of these are within walking distance of the site. To the north and east of the site is residential development and to the south and west is agricultural land associated with Bight Farm and also the occasional residential property and farm building. 5

11 planning policy context This Section provides an overview of the relevant sources of planning policy guidance that will be pertinent to the assessment of development potential. To this end, this Section is structured to provide an overview of the following: Guidance contained in paragraph 52 promotes the idea that it may the best solution in some instances to provide new homes on extension sites to existing villages and towns. Plan With regard to Local Plans and plan making, the guidance requires Plans to be sound and based on an up-to-date evidence base. In respect of residential development, this requires These are explored in turn below. The National Planning Policy Framework On the 27th March 2012, the Government issued the NPPF. At the core of the NPPF is the need to pursue sustainable development, which is focused on seeking to secure positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as (albeit not limited to) people s quality of life. In terms of housing development, this includes widening the choice of high quality homes and making it easier for jobs to be created in villages. housing needs, mix and tenures. establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land. With respect to the delivery of new housing, Section 6 of the NPPF provides the relevant guidance. There is a requirement on Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to undertake an assessment of housing needs (both market and affordable) and ensure that Local Plan for the area concerned meets those needs. In addition, there is also a requirement on the LPA to provide a rolling 5-year housing land supply requirement, plus either an additional buffer 5% or 20% depending on past performance. The buffer must be moved forward from later on in the Plan period. Paragraph 47 In terms of calculating supply figures, guidance in paragraph 48 allows for a windfall allowance to be included in the 5-year supply figures, if there is compelling evidence that these types of sites have become consistently available. 6

12 planning policy context Policies of the Emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan boundary. Under the Policy, Kempsey is identified as a Category 1 village and land to the south of the village is allocated for development the following under allocations: The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) was published in September 2011 and is subject to further revisions to bring it in line with the NPPF. Representations on the 2011 document were submitted on behalf of Heritage Manor by McLoughlin Planning. It should also be noted that this document pre-dates the NPPF. The generates a total allocation of 138 dwellings. The site is allocated for development in the SWDP and this remains the case with the Proposed Changes. SWDP1 this sets out the housing target for the Plan Period and settlement hierarchy. There is a requirement that new development will be assessed in accordance with that hierarchy and an acceptance that the greater the level of services and facilities in a village, the better suited they are to accommodating additional development. SWDP2 sets out (amongst other things) the housing requirement for the 3 LPAs in the SWDP area. In the case of Malvern Hills away from the Worcester City Area,. this is now set at 4,900 dwellings, against an overall SWDP requirement of 23,200 up to SWDP23 Sets out what villages are classified as Category 1 Villages. These villages are considered to be the most sustainable rural locations for new development in South Worcestershire. Development will include allocated sites, as well as sites within the settlement Policy SWDP30 deals with housing mix where there is an emphasis on smaller housing (2 to 3 bedrooms) although there is no prescribed mix in the Policy. Affordable Housing is governed by SWDP31, this applies to all developments of more than 5 dwellings. In the case where a mix of C2 and C3 uses are proposed, the affordable provision will only relate to the C3. The level of affordable housing to be sought will be 40% based on social rent, affordable rent or intermediate tenure. The precise mix of the affordable housing to be provided will vary from site to site. Renewable energy is governed by Policy SWDP46 and looks to incorporate renewable and low carbon energy into new development. In the case of the Kempsey site, there is a requirement to reduce CO2 emissions from the development by at least 10%. Elderly housing will be encouraged under new Policy being brought forward in the Proposed Changes to the Plan at SOC152. 7

13 principle of development Given that the site is allocated for development under Policy SWDP23, there is an expectation in SWDP terms that the site will be developed at some point in the future. Further reinforcement of this expectation is justified on the basis that the expected number of dwellings on the site, increased from 133 to 138. In terms of the phasing of the development, the Plan is silent on when the development is expected to deliver. For example, there is no housing trajectory of when development sites will come forward, and Policy SWDP50 assumes that development would either be delivered in Phase 2 of the SWDP (2013 to 2019) or Phase 3 (2019 to 2030). Whilst the allocation of the site is an obvious advantage, the work undertaken in preparing this Vision Document helps build an evidence base supporting the allocation. Work to-date by the team provides a useful base for boosting the evidence base for the site and this will be expanded further by more in depth study and master-planning, combined with: incorporated into the development as this will have implications for the overall master-planning approach and level of POS on site. 8

14 constraints Ecology The site has been the subject of a site walkover and desk based assessment. In ecological terms, the site is not subject to any statutory or nonstatutory designations. Furthermore whilst there are a number of non-statutory designated sites (Local Wildlife Zones) the EDP work concludes that there is no in-principle ecological barriers to development. although the hedgerows do offer some foraging habitat. are limited areas of the site which can provide habitat for common reptile species. Further investigations would be required on a precautionary basis. Therefore, in summary on this issue, the inherent ecological value of the site is considered to be low in EDP s view. The farmland is intensively farmed and the only ecological value is related to the narrow field margins which form boundaries to the site. This is reflected in the results of a protected species data trawl which has shown that: resources for common and widespread species of birds. the site and the site offers some limited foraging resource for the bat population. The disused buildings and mature trees on site are identified as targets for further investigation. phase 1 9

15 constraints Landscape The site has been the subject of a desk based assessment and site survey. The site is not subject to any statutory or local-level landscape designation and the EDP report concludes that there are no in principle barriers to the development of the site from a landscape perspective. The on-site landscape fabric contains few features of landscape value and presents an opportunity to enhance the landscape and ecological value of the site whilst responding to the decline in hedgerows. The site is in general well contanied. Open views into the site are limited to close range views from Old Road South, Main Road and a small number of dwellings adjacent to the site. Most notably from properties on Meadow Close, Old Road South and Main Road. As a consequence, the site has a good visual relationship with the village, following the historic pattern of growth. In this regard it forms a logical extension to the village. The initial visual appraisal also indicates that glimpses of development may be visible from private agricultural land, the Severn Way, PRoW and the Kempsey Conservation Area west of the site. The masterplan includes structural landscape planting along the western boundary to address this issue. The key notable landscape features comprise a number of mature trees, including Oak, Sweet Chestnut and Douglas Fir, located within the eastern part of the site. These trees are the subject of a TPO. Within the western part of the site, the existing hedgerow and hedgerow trees form a strong boundary to the south, a public right of way also bisects this part of the site. All these features are retained within the illustrative masterplan. 10

16 landscape constraints and opportunities

17 constraints Archaeology Consultation with the Worcestershire Historic Environment Record (HER), the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website and the National Heritage List maintained by English Heritage shows that the site does not contained any designated heritage assets such as scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens or listed buildings. As a result, EDP concludes that there are no in principle archaeological or heritage barriers to the allocation of the site or its capacity to support residential development. The nearest designated heritage assets to the site comprise a scheduled churchyard cross in the grounds of St. Mary s Church, located 1km to the north, and a number of listed buildings concentrated within the historic village core and located at the southern edge of the Kempsey Conservation Area. Further listed buildings are located to the south of the site, around Draycott. In contrast with the listed buildings to the north of the site in Kempsey, these are situated in an area of agricultural land, although they are inwardly focused and surrounded by mature woodland boundaries. However, EDP concludes that these heritage assets are unlikely to be adversely affected by the form of development proposed. The site does not contain any undesignated archaeological features or deposits recorded on the Worcestershire HER. However, based on the available evidence, the site does have potential to contain undesignated archaeological remains of prehistoric and Romano- British date, reflecting its topographic position on the gravel terrace above the River Severn. walkover survey in the first instance, in order to inform and support the development of an outline planning application. The Worcestershire Historic Landscape Character Assessment concludes that the land within the site is of moderate sensitivity. With that in mind, some consideration of the potential impact of proposed future development on the historic landscape will be required. However, given the size of the site and the nature of present land use, this should not represent a significant constraint. Highways An analysis by TPA shows that there is a bus stop within 200 metres and various other features (public house, village hall, primary school and village shop) within 390 to 850 metres with the village s Doctors Surgery being 1.2km away. In light of these facts, it is considered that the Appraisal site is in a suitable location to allow it to be accessed by non-car means of transport. In terms of wider travel, the bus service to Worcester is frequent (every 30 minutes) and travel time is 19 minutes. Therefore, commuting to Worcester by public transport (as opposed to the car) is also a viable option. In access terms, TPA have considered 2 schemes, providing an access point to the south of the TPO trees in either a T Junction or mini roundabout arrangement. The TPA plans show that an access can be achieved which meets highway standards and provides a required right turn lane. This access point also allows the promoters of Bight Farm to bring forward their part of the allocation. In summary on this issue, it is considered that the proposals meet both the requirement for development to be located at a place that offers genuine opportunities to minimise the need to travel by the private car and can provide a safe access point. As such, and in accordance with Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework, it is likely that further investigation will be required to support a successful application for planning permission at the site. This should take the form of a desktop assessment and 12

18 constraints Section 106 Requirements At this stage, it is not possible to provide detailed guidance about the likely S106 requirements arising from the development. However, the following will have to be considered: affordable rent, along with shared equity to be determined. a requirement for Primary School and Secondary School contributions. In addition to the above, it is expected that S106 contributions will be required for the following: vicinity of the site and as part of a wider strategic programme of improvements along the A38). The policy guidance on how this will be charged is not clear. within the village to compliment on-site provision. 13

19 sketch proposals To date, work undertaken by Barton Willmore shows a potential design solution for the site and this will evolve further through additional consultation with key stakeholders. In density terms, the SWDP Changes document (SOC146) is not clear in what the Council s expectations are for the density of development. Given an allocation area of 4.8 ha, this would result in a density figure as follows: As the site is allocated for 138, the proposed density for the whole the provisions of Part C of the policy are applicable as this effectively allows the developer to set the density figure, recognising the site s constraints, being adjacent to open undeveloped land. Given the site area of 3.6ha, it would be reasonable to expect that the site would deliver circa 110 of the proposed 138 dwellings. However, in order to make best use of the land Linden Homes feel that a density of a range of traditional family homes.

20

21 conclusions The purpose of this Vision Document is to illustrate the site s development potential and how it could be realised. In so doing, this desk-based assessment has considered the site s characteristics and its surroundings, along with the initial technical work undertaken by a consultant team comprising of EDP, Barton Willmore and TPA. At this stage, initial work undertaken by the consultant team and summarised in this document has shown that there are no in-principle barriers to the development of the Appraisal site. As result, this site can deliver the housing (both open market and affordable) which the village and Malvern District needs. 16

22 17

23 Prepared by: The Environmental Dimension Partnership 14 Inner Courtyard, Whiteway Farmhouse, The Whiteway, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 7BA T F E info@edp-uk.co.uk W McLoughlin Planning Signpost Cottage, The Camp, Stroud, Glos, GL6 7HN T E nathan.mcloughlin@mplanning.co.uk W McLOUGHLIN PLANNING EDP1611/06b

24 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February 2013 Paragraphs 70 to The respondent supports the purposes of the SWDP as set out in the above paragraphs, but wishes the following to be noted. Paragraph Other representations will deal with the overall level of housing, however, the approach adopted in bullet point b is contrary to paragraph 47 of the Framework, which looks to boost significantly the supply of housing. Paragraph The background to the Plan recognises the risk associated with not having an adopted plan. The expressed concern being that inappropriate development proposals may come forward as a result. This is not automatically the case and there is concern that by failing to adopt a sound plan, the Council will be preventing sustainable development from taking place. Just because a Plan is not adopted and development proposals come forward in advance of that adoption does not automatically conclude that such proposals are inappropriate. 4. Therefore is it concluded that the background is inconsistent with the Framework and sets an inappropriate tone for controlling development. Paragraph The respondent does not agree that the 2012 SHMA is more robust that the Panel s conclusions for the now aborted and soon to be abolished West Midlands RSS. Having reviewed the SHMA, it does not test higher levels of development, rather setting a level of development lower than what the RSS panel concluded. 6. The Plan fails the requirement of paragraph 47 of the Framework in that it does not boost housing supply. Policy SWDP 2 7. The Policy is unsound because it is not consistent with national policy for the reasons set out as follows: 1

25 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February The use of phasing policies elsewhere in the Plan directly conflicts with the requirement of the Framework for LPAs to maintain a 5-year supply of housing. Phasing policies, by their very nature look to restrict certain sites coming forward in advance of others. This does not take into account instances where sites that are scheduled to deliver in a specific phase fail to do so because of reasons outside of the LPA s control. This in turn leads to instances where on paper there is a five-year supply figure, but the realities of delivery contradict this. 9. Such a Policy could have a destabilising effect on the Plan and lead to planning applications being made on sites which are not in the Plan. 10. Bullet point iv sets out a sequential approach to the use of brownfield land in that there is a requirement that such land is re-used prior to the release of greenfield development land. Such an approach is contrary to the 9 th bullet point of the Core Principles set out in paragraph 17 of the Framework. The Framework only requires that the re-use of brownfield land is encouraged. Should this approach be adopted, it could further prevent the SWDP area maintaining the aforementioned 5-year housing land supply. 11. Bullet point vi requires the majority of development to be focused on urban areas, although it does not specify whether this is on brownfield or a mix of brownfield and green field. The SWDP area is a large diverse area with Worcester City as the focal point, followed by a series of town and villages and other lower order settlements, performing important service centre functions. This bullet point is unhelpful as the use of urban does not draw a distinction between the City or other settlements in the established settlement hierarchy. Furthermore, failure to allow for new development away from urban locations would be contrary to guidance in paragraph 55 which requires housing to be located in rural communities where it will, enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. 12. Bullet point vii is unclear in terms of what qualifies as capacity to assimilate change. New development by its very nature will generate additional requirements on host settlements (school places for example). As part of such developments, there is an identified need to provide Section 106 funding so that the impacts arsing from the development can be addressed and therefore assimilated. The bullet point, as drafted, provides a vague criterion for the assessment. 2

26 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February 2013 Part C 13. The use of open countryside is objected to because it is not sufficiently precise and open to interpretation. Around settlements, there will be areas which have a landscape character more closely associated with urban fringe. It is suggested that the word open is deleted from the Policy as this implies a landscape value that will not be attributable to all locations outside settlements boundaries. Part F 14. As with bullet point vii, the criterion should recognise that development proposals will have to provide appropriate contributions via the S106 to deal with the impacts arsing form the development. The criterion should accept the ability upgrade existing community services as part of new development. Criterion G 15. As with bullet point iv, such a requirement conflicts with the Framework s approach which seeks to encourage the reuse of brownfield land. Such a requirement would be deleted. Policy SWDP The policy is unsound because it is not positively prepared. 17. The levels of development proposed in the Policy are lower than that originally put forward in the Phase II Revision to the West Midlands RSS, over an extended Plan period (2006 to 230 is 24 years). The recent Honeybounre Appeal decision in Wychavon District sets out a number of concerns about the significant divergrence in the SHMA, when compared with the demographic analysis used by the ONS. As a result, it is considered that there are still a number of outsanding issues regarding the reliability of a 23,200 dwelling target (compared to a target in the RSS for 2006 to 2026). 18. Much is made by the Policy and supporting text that the Policy has been drafted in accordance with a SHMA sensitivity secnario, although there is no consideration in the SMAA of provding for a higer housing target and restrcutring some of the demographic issues being faced by more rural parts of the district assiciated with an ageing population. The risk is that the Plan will be found unsound as it fails to meet the positivley preapred test of soundness. 3

27 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February A further complication is that whilst some serious concerns reamain about the robsutness of the firgure, there is a credibility issue in that: The SHMA does identify a considerable need for affordable housing. Paragraph 7.30 of the SHMA sets out a net affordbale housing need of 1355 dwellings per annum over the next 5 years, which equates to a total of 6775 dwellings or 29% of the SWDP s current housing target. The SWDP housing target is clearly not jusitifable when compared against the evidence requesirements in its supporting SHMA. Table 4b of the plan shows a Malvern Hills (excluding WWA subtotal of 49,00 dwellings) with 1,300 of those dwellings being affordable. This euqates to 26.5% of the overall level of housing in this sub-area. There are clear conflicts between this requirement and other policy requirements in the SWDP which set the affordable housing target at 40% for allocated sites. Reasoned Justification Paragraph 14 shows that the SWDP aspiration of achieving 6,100 is actually 2150 below the total level of potential need as set out in the Housing Background Paper. 20. The Plan is clearly unable to demonstrate that it meets the test of soundness in this respect. Other comments include: 21. Discounting of outstanding commitments the fact that the Plan discounts by 4% is welcomed, however, this is contrary to accepted practice where a 10% discount is standard practice. 22. Long-term empty homes unless the residential use of the 150 dwellings identified in the table are considered to be abandoned, it is assumed that the residential use of the properties is still extant and therefore, an existing component of housing supply. The fact that these properties may be vacant for market issues is irrelevant in the wider context of the Plan s housing target. This should be discounted. 23. Windfall allowance Where is the evidence to support a 760 dwelling windfall target? 24. There is no allowance in the NPPF to account for housing that has been released by households moving into C2 uses. 4

28 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February 2013 Part I 25. The need to keep housing land supply under constant review is supported and other representations have set out the concerns about the use of a phasing policy. These concerns are further expressed because of the two phasing periods which is between 2006 and 2016 (10 years, with only 3 left to run) and 2019 onwards. The phasing split has not bee justified by the evidence base and appears purely arbitrary as a result. As worded, the criterion appears to allude to the fact that additional allocations will be made, but based on other representations raised, there is the concern that the Plan is making insufficient allocations in the first place, coupled with the fact that there is no flexible delivery mechanism in the plan to bring forward new sites if there is a need to do so. Reasoned Justification paragraph The SWDP fails to recognise what the impact of the Framework is in terms of land banking. Whilst it is impossible to predict the future and future changes to the planning system, under the current regime (as with PPS3), there was a requirement to maintain a supply of 5 years worth of housing land supply (plus 5% or 20%) this inevitably requires the SWDP to maintain some form of a land bank of development sites to meet the 5- year supply requirement. Policy SWDP4 and Supporting Text 27. The objective of Part A are supported however the following comments are made as the policy is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy. 28. The Policy is unsound because of the reliance on Local transport Plan 3, this document, dated March 2011 is not prepared in accordance with Manual for Streets 2 or the Framework. Part K 29. The need for transport assessments is supported, but concern is expressed about the lack of accountability in terms of the supporting policies listed in the policy, such as: Worcestershire County Council Sustainable Urban Extensions Developments Transport Requirements. 5

29 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February At this time of the submission consultation, this document is not available for public comment, therefore, how can the requirements of the guidance be understood in the context of SWDP4? A further complication is that the Policy does not appear to make any reference to Manual For Streets 2 or the latest Department for Transport guidance on lowering speed limits in villages. Policy SWDP5 31. This policy is unsound as the aims and objectives of the Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Study have yet to be published. 32. The Policy further conflicts with the Framework because it proposes 40% of a greenfield development site to be green infrastructure. There is no evidence base to support such a figure which at best appears arbitrary and shows no concern about the knock-on effects that requirement would have on the master planning of development sites. 33. It is recommended that the Policy be deleted. Policy SWDP6 34. The Policy is unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy with regards to the robust evidence base and being positively prepared. 35. As currently draft, the policy presents itself as a mix of heritage assets and landscape issues by making reference to the wider historic landscape of south Worcestershire. 36. In terms of landscape policy guidance, paragraph 113 of the Framework requires criteria based policies which draw a distinction between local, national and international levels of designation. In contrast, the wide-ranging reference to the landscape of south Worcestershire is not based on any evidence and is contrary to the approach set out in the paragraph. A further difficulty with the policy is in its relationship with paragraph 135 of the Framework, which specifically deals with non-designated heritage assets. This paragraph requires a balanced judgement on assessing the impact, whereas, the Policy appears to be able to be applied to any landscape in south Worcestershire. 37. Such a policy presents an overly restrictive and vague policy approach to dealing with heritage assets issues. Criterion 2 should be deleted from the Policy. 6

30 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February 2013 Policy SWDP The policy is unsound because there are issues of conflict with other policies in the Plan. 39. Part F of the plan requires sites for more than 100 dwellings to achieve a net density of 40 d/ha. The imposition of this target does not reflect the character of the local area and could lead to patterns of development which are out of keeping with the area. A further complication is that Policy SWDP5 requires 40% of a site to be Green Infrastructure and there is no evidence to support this position or understand how balancing this requirement, against Policy SWDP13 will damage the flexibility of urban designers to respond to a particular locality. 40. Part H of the policy sets out a target of 50% brownfield land. It is implicit in the Plan s strategy that it will be reliant upon greenfield development sites to meet the bulk of its requirements. Again, there is no evidence in the plan to support the position that 50% of the SWDP area will be brownfield. Furthermore, the prioritisation of brownfield land directly conflicts with the Framework, which has no such presumption in place. 41. Part L of the Policy conflicts with the provisions of paragraph 112 of the Framework in its treatment of agricultural land. Simply put, there is only a requirement to take into account agricultural land quality in planning decisions. Furthermore, there is no sequential approach in the Framework to support this position. 42. This part of the Policy is supported by paragraph 16, the development of best and most versatile agricultural land is not to be treated on an exceptional basis. That is directly in conflict with the Framework, as no such tests exist. Policy SWDP Concern about the lack of clarity in terms of the Policy s objectives in the treatment of new residential development. The Policy cannot be prescriptive about requiring a particular type of housing, nor can it require C2 uses on all new residential development sites. It is better felt that this issue can be addressed by the Lifetime Homes standard and securing an appropriate level of such houses in new development. 7

31 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February 2013 Policy SWDP The Policy is unsound as it conflicts with the Framework in potentially requiring developers to contribute to infrastructure that is not covered by the Section 106 process. It is not the responsibility of developers to provide broadband infrastructure, whether that is by cable or some other form. 45. It is recommended that the Policy be reworded to more specially deal with telecommunications related development rather than telecommunications issues arising from new development. Policy SWDP The Policy is unsound as it conflicts with guidance in the Framework. 47. Building Regulations are a statutory framework securing the environmental performance of buildings (amongst other things) and provided that development meets Building Regulations, then there should be not requirement to automatically perform over and above those requirements. The Policy makes reference to economic viability testing to support higher level performance, the concern with this is that there could be areas of difference between the LPA and the developer concerned as to whether higher code performance is viable or not. 48. In terms of CHP, there is no support for a Policy requirement to investigate the installation of a CHP facility on large sites (whatever that may be defined as). This is on the basis that the Worcestershire County Council Technical Research Paper on the matter (page 35) noted that CHP is most suitable for mixed-use development where there is a consistent demand for heat and energy throughout the day. This is in contrast to solely residential development, which has atypically lower heat and energy requirements during the day because occupants are normally away from home. Furthermore, the West Midlands Renewable Energy Capacity Assessment (part of the SWDP evidence base) does not consider that there is any demand for CHP systems in Malvern, so it is wholly unreasonable to require a scheme in the village to investigate this requirement. Linden further question the use of commuted sums in lieu of low carbon technologies and fail to see how such contributions can meet the tests of paragraph 204 of the Framework. 8

32 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February The requirement for financial contributions towards the Carbon Offset fund is also questioned in terms of what will the contributions be spent on. Policy SWDP Part B iv is considered unsound because it conflicts with national policy. 51. As drafted, the criterion would allow for the LPA to seek contributions towards flood risk betterment. If the proposed development is in flood zone 1 and the site FRA demonstrates that the level of surface water run-off is the same as that prior to the development of the site, then it necessarily follows that further contributions are not relevant and would not meet the tests in paragraph 204 of the Framework. Policy SWDP The policy is unsound because there is no reference to the evidence to support Part C of the Policy. The limit of 105 litres per day does not differentiate between various sizes of dwelling. 53. Building Regulations are a statutory framework securing the environmental performance of buildings (amongst other things) and provided that development meets Building Regulations, then there should be not requirement to automatically perform over and above those requirements. The limits quoted in the Policy are not on a per-dwelling basis but should be calculated on a per person, per day basis. 54. The policy needs to be corrected to reflect the proper guidance. Policy SWDP The Policy is unsound because it conflicts with paragraph 204 of the Framework. 56. The risk with the way the policy is worded is that it could be used to try to secure improvements to the local green network which are wholly unrelated to development, as evidenced by: address existing deficiencies in provision through qualitative and quantative enhancement of existing sites and facilities 9

33 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February Paragraph 204 of the Framework requires (inter alia) contributions to be directly related to the development. In the case of the Policy, by looking at address existing deficiencies this could widen the scope of contributions sought. Policy SWDP The Policy is unsound because of the lack of evidence in the Plan to support the figures proposed and the conflict with other policy provisions (notably SWDP5). 59. As drafted, the Policy seeks to provide a range of public open space between 3.09ha to 4.22ha per 1000 population. Table 10 shows a typology of open space that should be provided in new developments. It is considered that the list of different types of open space is overly complex and introduces elements that are not appropriate in all circumstances. Specific concerns are set out below: Cemeteries and Churchyards It is considered that such a standard is inappropriate and what evidence has been produced to support such a standard? Experience elsewhere shows that the provision of graveyard extensions is some thing which happens on an as and when basis and seeking such provision is contrary to the provisions of Circular 05/05. Civic Space It is questionable how this contribution could be justified and what is its relationship with Parks and Gardens? 60. It is considered that the guidance relating to the provision of open space in new developments should mirror the guidance in the Fields in Trust document Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play which is the replacement for the Acre Standard. Policy SWDP Support the proposed Policy but offer the following comments: 62. As drafted the allocation is unsound for the reason that that proposed numbers does not reflect guidance elsewhere in the plan about making best use of the site and contributing to the supply of housing across the SWDP area. Linden Homes welcomes the increase in the size of the Kempsey allocation to 138 dwellings, but has the following comments: 10

34 SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Representations on behalf of Linden Homes February Linden Homes seeks an additional amendment to the allocation to encompass land that is part of the curtilage of The Lawns Care Home, on the northern boundary of the allocation. The red-line of the Masterplan included in the Vision Document (accompanying these representations shows the extent of the Lawns site to be included in the allocation). The rationale behind this is to provide a flexible approach to the allocation and meet the design objectives set out in paragraph 55 of the Framework. 64. The proposed increase in dwellings to 138 represents a site density of less than 30 dwellings per hectare. It is considered that the density should be increased to 35 d/ha to allow for circa 170 dwellings. This justified on the basis of other concerns raised in respect of housing supply, but also to make better use of the site and meet other Policy objectives in regard to density. 65. Finally, Linden would object to any further southern expansion of the allocation towards Pixham Ferry Lane. It is felt that this would result in a form of development, which would be remote from the village, when compared to the SWDP59 allocation. 11