South Gloucestershire New Local Plan Phase 1 Responses

Local Plan 2020

List of answers to the specified question
NameResponseDate
Redcliffe Homes No comments. 01 Jun 2021 13:16
Waddeton Park Ltd - Land at Hi… 80. As a matter of principle, we support the creation of well designed places, but the policy wording proposed is again, overly prescriptive and will result in removing the opportunity for innovation. As an example, a Plan should not prescribe a particular way that windows are arranged on all buildings. This should be a matter for independent design review on a scheme-by-scheme basis. It would be more appropriate for this to be contained in a separate design guide.

81. Likewise, there is concern that the Urban Lifestyles approach suggests the creation of compact, efficient, and healthy urban areas. As we have seen in recent times, compact and efficient housing does not always lead to a healthy urban area.

82. In a similar manner, the movement section of the proposed policy is again too prescriptive and overly complex. The priority for walking and cycling is understood and should be extended to e-cycling and potentially other sustainable travel modes.

83. Regarding nature and public spaces, again, Waddeton Park Ltd support the general principles, but the detail is too great for the policy to be workable and relate to every circumstance. There is also a contradiction between seeking lots of incidental open spaces and an expectation elsewhere in the Plan to consolidate space to make it of a meaningful scale for recreation and play. The approach should be rationalised to create clarity for those tasked with delivering development.

84. As with other parts of the policy the housing element could be simplified and much of it used as supporting text. It would be helpful to better understand what the term ‘adaptable’ means given that it can have a very significant impact upon viability.

85. As with many of the other policies in the Core Strategy Review, we support the application of the M4(2) accessibility standards which is now becoming an industry standard.

86. However, the application of the accessibility standard M4(3) to all new housing would have a material impact on the Plan’s delivery. Cost increase estimates provided to the Government’s Housing Standards Review by EC Harris estimated £15,691 per apartment and £26,816 per house. Again, this is something that should be considered as part of the whole Plan viability exercise which is encouraged by national policy. It is noted that the NPPG (ID 56-008-20150327) only requires this for dwellings over which the Council has housing nomination rights. Therefore, it should only be required in these specific circumstances.
17 May 2021 18:40
Ivywell Capital (IC) 6.8 Whilst we are supportive of a policy which seeks to secure well-designed places, one might question the value of generic policies such as these which often repeat principles/guidance already set out at a national level (e.g. NPPF). One wonders if it would be better to require compliance with established industry guidance like Building for Life 12 with separate policies dictating resource consumption and energy efficiency. 17 May 2021 15:38
Bristol and England Properties… 6.8 Whilst we are supportive of a policy which seeks to secure well-designed places, one might question the value of generic policies such as these which often repeat principles/guidance already set out at a national level (e.g. NPPF). One wonders if it would be better to require compliance with established industry guidance like Building for Life 12 with separate policies dictating resource consumption and energy efficiency. 17 May 2021 10:52
Newland Homes - Land at Aust Road 6.9 Whilst we are supportive of a policy which seeks to secure well-designed places, one might question the value of generic policies such as these which often repeat principles/guidance already set out at a national level (e.g. NPPF). One wonders if it would be better to require compliance with established industry guidance like Building for Life 12 with separate policies dictating resource consumption and energy efficiency. 14 May 2021 17:12
Newland Homes - Land West of T… 6.9 Whilst we are supportive of a policy which seeks to secure well-designed places, one might question the value of generic policies such as these which often repeat principles/guidance already set out at a national level (e.g. NPPF). One wonders if it would be better to require compliance with established industry guidance like Building for Life 12 with separate policies dictating resource consumption and energy efficiency. 13 May 2021 17:52
Persimmon Homes Severn Valley Please see attached document.

Proposed Policies: High Quality Design and Local Distinctiveness:

6.11 We note the intention to update existing policy CS1 (High Quality Design) from the adopted Core Strategy and policy PSP1 (Local Distinctiveness) from the Policies Sites and Places Plan.

6.12 We support the principle of these policies provided that they are applied appropriately to the specific context in which a development proposal is being considered.
11 May 2021 18:35
Strongvox Homes Creating Well-designed Places:

6.7 Whilst we are supportive of a policy which seeks to secure well-designed places, one might question the value of generic policies such as these which often repeat principle/guidance already set out at a national level (e.g. NPPF). One wonders if it would be better to require compliance with established industry guidance like Building for Life 12 with separate policies dictating resource consumption and energy efficiency.
11 May 2021 18:08
Progress Land Ltd The policy is very detailed and duplicates the general thrust of the NDG. We would question whether all aspects of this policy can be adhered to by developments which deliver intensification of urban areas which does reinforce the concept of delivering growth via new settlements which can be properly planned to deliver these ambitions. 11 May 2021 13:45
IM Land 83. As a matter of principle, IM Land supports the creation of well design places, but the policy wording proposed is overly prescriptive and will result in removing the opportunity for innovation. By way of an example, a Plan should not prescribe a particular way that windows are arranged on all buildings. This should be a matter for independent design review on a scheme-by-scheme basis.

84. Likewise, there is concern that the Urban Lifestyles approach suggests the creation of compact, efficient, and healthy urban areas. As we have seen in recent times, compact and efficient housing does not always lead to a healthy urban area.

85. In a similar manner, the movement section of the proposed policy is again too prescriptive and overly complex. The priority for walking and cycling is understood and should be extended to e-cycling and potentially other sustainable travel modes.

86. Regarding nature and public spaces, again, IM Land support the general principles, but the detail is too great for the policy to be workable and relate to every circumstance. There is also a contradiction between seeking lots of incidental open spaces and an expectation elsewhere in the Plan to consolidate space to make it of a meaningful scale for recreation and play. The approach should be rationalised to create clarity for those tasked with delivering development.

87. As with other parts of the policy the housing element could be simplified and much of it used as supporting text. It would be helpful to better understand what the term ‘adaptable’ means given that it can have a very significant impact upon viability.

88. As with many of the other policies in the Core Strategy Review, IM Land supports the application of the M4(2) accessibility standards which is now becoming an industry standard.

89. However, the application of the accessibility standard M4(3) to all new housing would have a material impact on the Plan’s delivery. Cost increase estimates provided to the Government’s Housing Standards Review by EC Harris estimated £15,691 per apartment and £26,816 per house. Again, this is something that should be considered as part of the whole Plan viability exercise which is encouraged by national policy. It is noted that the NPPG (ID 56-008-20150327) only requires this for dwellings over which the Council has housing nomination rights. Therefore, it should only be required in these specific circumstances.
11 May 2021 12:12
Next pageLast page