South Gloucestershire New Local Plan Phase 1 Responses

View Response

Response #951254

Response #951254
From The Badminton Estate
Agent Claudia Jones - Ridge and Part…
Date Started: 04 May 2021 18:29. Last modified: 04 May 2021 18:29
Status Complete
Download as a PDF

Show/hide text and images

Information on the Local Plan

 

To view the Phase 1 Issues and Approaches document including the sections referred to in this questionnaire, please visit www.southglos.gov.uk/LocalPlan2020.

1: Understanding who is responding

Please help us understand the type of groups and people that are responding and engaging with the preparation of our new Local Plan, by choosing which one of the following stakeholder groups you best represent.

You must choose one option to be able to submit your response.

You must provide an answer to this question.

Other (Please state below:)
If other, please state:
The Badminton Estate.

2: Issues

We have set out 55 issues which our Local Plan will need to consider.

The 55 issues are set out in this section of our document.  

Do you agree that these are the right issues for our plan to consider?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

3: Issues

Would you like to comment on any of the issues or add new issues? Please note the name of the issue in your comments, or tell us what additional issues you think our plan should consider.

Please see accompanying representation.

3.1 The consultation document identifies 55 key issues under 9 key themes to help establish the direction of growth for the District:

• Climate Change; our environment;

• Health and well-being; exceptional places;

• Planning for urban and rural areas;

• Planning for new homes; and

• Our economy; and supporting infrastructure.

3.2 The issues within these are extensive and comprehensive and are generally considered to be the right issues for the emerging LP to consider.

3.3 The overarching theme ‘planning for urban and rural areas’ is considered vital to ensure the right amount of growth is distributed across the District, and that the importance of directing an appropriate proportion of that growth towards rural areas is secured. All other themes are considered to influence to an extent, where and how sustainable and proportionate development is delivered within rural areas.

3.4 It is positive to see under key issue 26 ‘Growth in rural villages and settlements’ that the difficulties of affordability and sustainability within rural areas through the lack of growth is recognised by the Council. This is also reflected in key issue 29 ‘Housing affordability.’ These problems are reflective of the conclusions drawn from the Matthew Taylor report (2008) who recognised that stifling growth in rural areas would amount to an imbalance of economic, social and environmental sustainability, the key three objectives now reflective within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to achieve the “presumption in favour of sustainable development.” The conclusions of that report have followed through to Paragraph 78 of the NPPF which seeks “to promote sustainable development in rural areas” stating “housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.” It then goes onto state “planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.” Equally, the Planning Practice Guidance recognises[1] planning policies can limit development within rural areas and states “a wide range of settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas, so blanket policies restricting housing development in some types of settlement will need to be supported by robust evidence of their appropriateness.”

[1] Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 67-009-20190722.

3.5 Clearly, the direction in which the emerging LP is taking to achieve sustainable development accords with the principles of national planning policy as above, seeking to plan appropriate development in rural areas to improve affordability and support local services and facilities. For example, key issue 23 ‘Greenfield land’ recognises there is limited supply of land to be developed within urban areas and Brownfield land stating “development of greenfield land and sites will most likely need to form part of the strategy for growth in homes, jobs facilities and services.” Similarly, key issue 25 ‘New locations for large scale growth’ recognises “locations for very large sites to provide for new homes, jobs and facilities will require investigation of land and locations outside the urban area on greenfield sites in appropriate rural areas.” However, the development of smaller sites is not disregarded whereby key issue 34 ‘Small sites requirement’ seeks to comply with national planning policy recognising 10% of all Local Plan growth should come from sites no larger than one hectare.

3.6 That said, it is noted key issue 24 focuses on the prospect of removing land within the Green Belt to help deliver this growth, identifying that a majority of rural settlements with higher levels of accessibility to services and facilities through sustainable modes of transport are located within the Green Belt. Whilst we do not disagree with this, sites outside the Green Belt that are covered by other environmental designations (such as the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings) should also be considered as suitable sites for development in principle. This is considered in more detail below.

3.7 As well as residential development, the consultation document comments upon the location of employment under key issue 40, stating the concentration of jobs in urban areas such as Bristol and the lack of job opportunities in other areas places a strain on commuting across the Local Authority, impacting negatively upon not only the inequality of the community but also the level of Carbon emissions received. This echoes the principles contained within key issue 1, which promotes access to key services and facilities through effective modes of sustainable transport, minimising the need of private car use and reducing the amount of Carbon emissions.

3.8 Further, key issue 2 ‘Climate Change resilience’ highlights the threat toward the provision of, and access, to services. In response to this, the Council believe “our rural area and farming community presents opportunities for helping to mitigate and adapt to Climate Change through locally grown food production and enabling nature recovery through extensive green infrastructure.” As outlined above, the Estate’s economic activity revolves around the farming industry. With this and the extensive land they own, they see opportunity in being able to assist the Council in delivering such an aim. This is discussed in further detail below.

3.9 The above considers key issues we feel are necessary to address through the progression of the LP to assist the Authority in delivering a wealth of growth that is both sustainable and well-balanced within rural areas.

4: Priorities

Do you agree with the potential priorities?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

5: Priorities

Do you have any comments on the potential priorities?

Please see accompanying representation.

In response to this, the ‘Potential Priorities’ outlined by the Council are considered by the Estate to be appropriate and measured and are generally supported.

3.10 Specifically, Priority 5) ‘Planning for urban and rural areas’ is considered key in order to help plan growth positively and sustainably within the District. Bullet point 3 under that priority seeks to “share the benefits of well-planned growth and prosperity across urban and appropriate rural communities.” To achieve that it is considered Priority 6) ‘Provide the right type and number of new homes’ will have a role to play which supports the provision of a variant in site sizes and location to help meet the District’s housing need. Equally, Priority 7) ‘Enable a productive, clean and inclusive economy’ recognises the importance of a “green economic recovery” resulting from COVID-19 and seeks to “ensure a balanced range of safeguarded employment land across South Gloucestershire” is achieved, enabling all communities to have access to job opportunities via sustainable modes of transport. This is also reflected in Priorities 1) ‘Pursue a Carbon neutral and resilient future in a changing climate’ and 4) ‘Creating exceptional places and spaces.’

3.11 We consider the Council have recognised suitable priorities in which to achieve sustainable development across the District, and as part of this have considered how rural communities can benefit from such development.

6: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you agree with the five building blocks (Urban Areas, Urban Extensions, Market Towns, Rural Villages, New Settlements)?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

7: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you have any comments on the five building blocks (Urban Areas, Urban Extensions, Market Towns, Rural Villages, New Settlements)?

Please see accompanying representation.

4.1. The consultation document sets out five building blocks where development could take place:

1. Building Block 1: Existing urban areas;

2. Building Block 2: Expanding our main urban areas through small or large urban extensions;

3. Building Block 3: Growth around our market towns;

4. Building Block 4: Rural villages and settlements; and

5. Building Block 5: Large scale free standing new settlements.

4.2. Whilst the Estate are supportive of all development growth contained within those building blocks, they are particularly supportive of Building Block 4 for reasons set out above and on the proviso that this helps enhance the sustainability of the host settlement.

8: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you agree with the initial guiding principles?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

9: Strategy- Where will development go

Do you think we have missed any key, initial guiding principles?

Please see accompanying representation.

4.3. The six guiding principles following on from this are proposed as a guide on how sites will be considered suitable for development as well helping to meet the ‘Potential Priorities’ as above.

4.4. Of those, guiding principle 1 seeks to “locate new homes, jobs or settlements in places where key services and facilities are easily accessed by walking and cycling or effective Public Transport, or alternatively in locations where key services and facilities are capable of being provided as part of the new development.” It is understood that this principle is a common strategy used across all Local Authorities in determining where growth should be concentrated. We agree that this approach is appropriate and necessary to achieve sustainable development. However, in a diverse District such as South Gloucestershire, that principle should not disregard locations where housing could be located “where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.” As stipulated at Paragraph 78 of the NPPF “Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.” In that regard, sites that are situated within or adjacent to smaller villages, and which may have access to fewer services and facilities or less frequent Public Transport services, should still be considered suitable locations for development which is proportionate to the settlement size and its function, allowing for incremental growth which will help sustain and enhance rural villages. The NPPF makes clear at Paragraph 103 that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and this should be taken into account during Plan-making and also when looking to support the sustainability of existing communities.

4.5. Such principles can be effective within rural communities, allowing persons to work from home comfortably or have a ‘community employment hub’ that locals can use to work effectively and sustainably. Consequently, a reduction in the need to travel can be achieved which overall reduces Carbon emissions, having a positive impact upon Climate Change. It should also be noted that having the ability to work from home has become increasingly more important during the COVID pandemic and our planning policies will need to respond rapidly to accommodate this change within all our communities.

4.6. Finally, guiding principle 6 aims to ensure that development protects a “sense of place and character.” Within this, we support the Council’s recognition that development should respond to the “existing natural, built, historic and landscape assets, while enhancing the future character and distinctiveness of each unique area” and that the context of an existing community and the ability for an existing area to accommodate further growth are key factors in achieving sustainable development. The importance of this has recently been highlighted through the proposed changes to the NPPF. Irrespective of this, the Estate firmly believes that new development in smaller communities should reflect the existing architecture and building pattern and ensure that they are of a high quality and sustainable design that assimilates well with the host community.

4.7. To that end, it is respectfully requested the Council deliver guiding principles 1 and 5 and do not use guiding principle 6 to unnecessarily restrict growth in rural areas to ensure sustainable housing and employment growth is achieved within the District which is proportionate and helps sustain and enhance the viability and viability of those settlements. Doing so will help the District achieve a greener economy and help respond to the implications of COVID-19, as well as providing balanced and healthy communities as advocated at Paragraph 91 of the NPPF.

10: Urban Lifestyles

Do you agree with our Urban Lifestyles approach to investigate further change and growth in our urban areas?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

11: Urban Lifestyles

Do you have any comments on the Urban Lifestyle approach to investigate further growth and change in our urban areas?

«No response»

12: Urban Lifestyles

Do you agree with the areas where the Urban Lifestyles approach should be investigated?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

13: Urban Lifestyles

Do you have any comments on individual locations we have set out, or other locations which should be investigated for an urban lifestyles approach for further growth and change in our urban areas?

«No response»

14: Creating Sustainable Rural Villages and Settlements

Do you agree with our proposed approach to the national policy issues highlighted,  like flood risk, the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Belt, and other planning considerations and issues?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know

15: Creating Sustainable Rural Villages and Settlements

Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to investigate an appropriate level of growth in our rural villages and settlements?

Please see accompanying representation.

5.1. As a principle, it is encouraging to see the Council have dedicated a detailed section of the Phase 1 consultation toward achieving sustainable rural villages and settlements. The issues identified within this section are reflective of the key issues considered above, including the difficulties in the lack of provision of affordable housing to help meet the requirements of different groups within the District, including housing for both the elderly and the younger populations, as well as the lack of employment opportunities and vitality of local services and facilities.

5.2. As identified above, the Council are seeking to provide growth opportunities on small, medium and larger sites which we consider a comprehensive and positive strategy in helping to achieve sustainable growth within rural settlements. We note that the Phase 1 consultation document is not an opportunity to discuss specific site allocations and that this will be considered in Autumn 2021 following the completion of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). However, at this point it is worth highlighting to the Council that Ridge and Partners LLP on behalf of the Badminton Estate submitted a number of representations to the Council’s Call for Sites consultation in October 2020 for residential, employment and retail uses which will be assessed as part of the emerging HELAA. The sites are of small to medium scale adjoining existing rural settlements with the potential to support and in some instances offer local services and facilities; reflective of the Council’s emerging Spatial Strategy. In particular the emerging LP considers locations “in and around all villages and settlements with a defined settlement boundary, or recognised collections of dwellings, and areas around the edges of market towns” and “areas where sites have been identified through previous Call for Sites, up to 200 meters from the edges of urban areas” as appropriate areas for development. With regard to the former, a number of ‘rural settlements and villages’ are then listed which includes settlements to which the Estate own land within, including Acton Turville, Badminton, Tormarton and West Littleton. It should be noted that the representations submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation contained sites surrounding these settlements and therefore align with the Council’s emerging Plan in identifying suitable locations for rural development.

Sustainability and Accessibility:

5.3. The consultation document then asks “Are all these locations sustainable and appropriate for investigation for planned growth?” and considers similar guiding principles as set out above to help address this, focusing on the size of existing settlements, reviewing any planned growth of those settlements over the years, and placing an emphasis on how sustainable those locations are in terms of their accessibility to a range of services and facilities via sustainable modes of transport. To determine what settlements are considered ‘sustainable’ locations for development, the Council has prepared Data & Access Profiles (DAPs) on each settlement reflective of data from November 2020. The DAPs provide factual information on each settlement of the District including the range of services and facilities contained within them.

5.4. Whilst we have no comments toward the methodology used to formulate the DAPs, it is vital that the use of the DAPs should not be used to disregard development located in settlements which either are not within walking or cycling distances to the majority of ‘key services’ as defined within the emerging LP, or where they do not contain a bus service that occurs above every hour[1]. Villages by their very nature are sustainable locations and will also support rural employment, services and facilities either within their boundaries or the facilities of surrounding settlements. Proportionate, well planned and well designed growth in smaller communities should therefore be accommodated alongside the DAPs methodology to ensure that all settlements can grow sustainably into the future. If the Council were to deprive rural communities of some growth then a number of settlements in the District will become more deprived, resulting in even less sustainable locations, imbalanced communities and further reliance on the private vehicle. As well as impacting upon the inequalities of society this will also harm the ability for the Council to reach a zero net Carbon future.

5.5. The Council should use the DAPs to identify the amount of growth suitable for each of the rural villages and give substantial weight to proposals that would either conserve and enhance existing services and facilities within those settlements, or provide additional services and facilities and employment opportunities to increase the self-sufficiency of rural areas, a key aim of the NPPF. Equally the DAPs should give weight to community cohesion and social sustainability in addition to locational proximity to shops, services and facilities.

[1] A parameter used within the DAPs to establish whether settlements have ‘good’ access to services and facilities via public modes of transport.

Environmental Designations and Constraints:

5.6. Given the rural context of these areas consideration of sites located in the AONB, the Green Belt and areas of Flood Risk is also taken into account, as well as any impacts such proposals would have on ecology, heritage assets and local landscape character. The Estate fully support the importance of ensuring these material considerations are considered and given appropriate weight so the natural and historic landscape is conserved and enhanced, particularly given that the majority of their land sits within the Cotswold AONB and that the Estate itself owns and protects a number of heritage assets, among those of which includes the Grade I Listed Badminton Estate Registered Park and Garden and Badminton House.

5.7. The emerging LP should not seek to protect these designated areas through restricting development but rather adopt an approach that seeks to conserve and enhance these environmental assets, securing their preservation for the future. In terms of the AONB, whilst the NPPF contains Paragraph 172 which limits development to be of small-scale in these areas, unless exceptional circumstances apply, this should not be used as a blanket policy to rebut development in these areas. Conversely, planning policy should embrace proportionate development in the AONB that has the potential to enhance these areas with good design. As recognised by the Council, the lack of growth can cause social and economic deprivation with higher affordability costs and lack of employment opportunities. It is refreshing to see the Council identify this as an issue within the consultation document.

5.8. We consider there is ample opportunity to achieve sustainable development within or adjoining settlements in the AONB that contain an adequate level of services and facilities and access to Public Transport without having an adverse impact upon its special landscape qualities and characteristics. It should be recognised that the settlements within the AONB are part of its intrinsic character and beauty and therefore some development should have the potential to sit comfortably within this environment. This supports our request for the Council to use the DAPs in an appropriate manner to help inform the level of growth in rural areas.

5.9. Notwithstanding the above, we note that the Council, as part of their proposed development strategy, are exploring the opportunity to release land from the Green Belt to help deliver growth within rural areas, given the majority of settlements within closer proximity to larger settlements are located in the Green Belt. As above, we do not disagree with this proposed strategy. However, it is noted that the Council, in deciding whether land should be released from the Green Belt, provide alternative scenarios:

1. “Only investigate the potential for an appropriate level of small to medium-scale growth in villages and settlements outside of the Green Belt; or

2. Investigate the potential for an appropriate level of small to medium-scale growth in villages and settlements both outside and inside the Green Belt.”

5.10. Appendix 1 of the consultation document sets out a pros and cons list of each scenario. Rather than commenting on the approach taken, which is supportive of development in locations of interest to the Estate (i.e. outside the Green Belt), Appendix 1 defines the settlements of Acton Turville, Badminton, Tormarton and West Littleton as having “minimum level of sustainable Public Transport links and very limited cycling and walking access to key services and facilities.” Notwithstanding the negative tone this presents toward the sustainability of these settlements, the Council identifies that avoiding development at these locations without releasing land from the Green Belt will increase pressure on other areas of the District to accommodate the level of growth required for the District. As such, the Council favours Option 2 which enables the distribution of growth outside and within the Green Belt (or otherwise releasing land from the Green Belt).

5.11. With this in mind, it is important to ensure that as the emerging LP gathers momentum that the proposed development strategy does not restrict rural development to sites that are currently in the Green Belt, avoiding development in the AONB. This would isolate existing communities in the AONB, including the populations of Acton Turville, Badminton, Tormarton and West Littleton, resulting in an influx of social and economic deprivation. Moreover, the growth in rural areas would not be evenly distributed, resulting in part of the District where the AONB sits outside the Green Belt to become unsustainable.

16: Creating Sustainable Rural Villages and Settlements

Are there any other planning issues you think we should consider?

Please see accompanying representation.

6.1 A review of the proposed working policies contained within the Phase 1 consultation document has been undertaken and overall the Estate welcomes the Council’s proposed range of both strategic and non-strategic policies, noting particularly the proposed policy referring to the strategy for growth and protection where it is assumed this will provide the policy wording and settlement hierarchy for how development should be distributed across the District.

6.2 It is noted the draft wording for this policy will be issued at the Phase 2 consultation. We would therefore like to take the opportunity to help influence the wording of this policy to ensure that sustainable growth that is proportionate to rural settlements can be achieved. In doing so, I refer to an adopted Local Plan policy (Policy DS3) contained within the Cotswold Local Plan (adopted 2018). That policy allows for ‘small-scale’ residential development in what Cotswold District Council define as ‘non-principal settlements’ subject to a criterion. The exact wording of that policy is as follows:

“Small-scale residential development in non-Principal Settlements.

1. In non-Principal Settlements, small-scale residential development will be permitted provided it:

a) Demonstrably supports or enhances the vitality of the local community and the continued availability of services and facilities locally;

b) Is of a proportionate scale and maintains and enhances sustainable patterns of development;

c) Complements the form and character of the settlement; and

d) Does not have an adverse cumulative impact on the settlement having regard to other developments permitted during the Local Plan period.

2. Applicants proposing two or more residential units on sites in non-Principal Settlements should complete a rural housing pro-forma and submit this with the Planning Application.”

6.3 Cotswold District Council do not have a defined list of those settlements that are ‘non-Principal’, but instead provide a flexible policy approach which allows rural settlements with greater sustainability credentials, such as having access to everyday services such as shops, Post Offices, Schools and good Public Transport links to neighbouring towns, to grow incrementally, a key aim that South Gloucestershire Council are clearly trying to achieve within their emerging LP. Further, Cotswold District Council recognise that rural settlements that have fewer services and facilities can still be defined as ‘non-Principal Settlements’ where they have “reasonable access” to neighbouring rural settlements that contain a larger range. Paragraph 6.3.4 of the Cotswold Local Plan states “distance, quality of route, topography and pedestrian safety are important issues when considering the accessibility of services and facilities.” It is considered South Gloucestershire Council should adopt a similar, flexible approach to allow for proportionate, incremental development in rural areas where it would support not only the villages themselves, but neighbouring villages, reflecting the requirements of Paragraph 78 of the NPPF. It will be at this point where the correct reading and interpretation of the DAPs is vital in order to achieve this.

6.4 The criteria attached to Policy DS3 provides a ‘safety net’ to ensure development in rural areas respects, conserves and enhances the rural character and appearance of the landscape as well as any other environmental constraints, having regard to flood risk zones and areas containing heritage assets. As such, the policy requires development to be designed to reflect the local character of settlements ensuring the scale of development is proportionate to the size of the settlement. Further, the policy requires the decision-maker to take into account any other recent development of the village to ensure no adverse cumulative impacts are caused from the new development. The rural housing pro-forma required to be completed for any proposals containing two or more dwellings ensures the Applicant provides the level of detail required to ensure the policy requirements of Policy DS3 are met within a Planning Application.

6.5 Overall, we consider a similar policy could be contained within the emerging LP to help the Council create sustainable rural villages and settlements without causing any adverse impacts upon the character and form of those villages, nor impacting upon the environmental designations likely to be contained within those areas. To that end, we would like to invite Officers at the Council to discuss the opportunity of implementing such a policy within the emerging LP.

17: Policies

Do you agree with the range and scope of policies we are proposing to include in our new Local Plan?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

18: Policies

Do you have any comments on the range and scope of policies we are proposing?

Please see accompanying representation.

6.1 A review of the proposed working policies contained within the Phase 1 consultation document has been undertaken and overall the Estate welcomes the Council’s proposed range of both strategic and non-strategic policies, noting particularly the proposed policy referring to the strategy for growth and protection where it is assumed this will provide the policy wording and settlement hierarchy for how development should be distributed across the District.

6.2 It is noted the draft wording for this policy will be issued at the Phase 2 consultation. We would therefore like to take the opportunity to help influence the wording of this policy to ensure that sustainable growth that is proportionate to rural settlements can be achieved. In doing so, I refer to an adopted Local Plan policy (Policy DS3) contained within the Cotswold Local Plan (adopted 2018). That policy allows for ‘small-scale’ residential development in what Cotswold District Council define as ‘non-principal settlements’ subject to a criterion. The exact wording of that policy is as follows:

“Small-scale residential development in non-Principal Settlements.

1. In non-Principal Settlements, small-scale residential development will be permitted provided it:

a) Demonstrably supports or enhances the vitality of the local community and the continued availability of services and facilities locally;

b) Is of a proportionate scale and maintains and enhances sustainable patterns of development;

c) Complements the form and character of the settlement; and

d) Does not have an adverse cumulative impact on the settlement having regard to other developments permitted during the Local Plan period.

2. Applicants proposing two or more residential units on sites in non-Principal Settlements should complete a rural housing pro-forma and submit this with the Planning Application.”

6.3 Cotswold District Council do not have a defined list of those settlements that are ‘non-Principal’, but instead provide a flexible policy approach which allows rural settlements with greater sustainability credentials, such as having access to everyday services such as shops, Post Offices, Schools and good Public Transport links to neighbouring towns, to grow incrementally, a key aim that South Gloucestershire Council are clearly trying to achieve within their emerging LP. Further, Cotswold District Council recognise that rural settlements that have fewer services and facilities can still be defined as ‘non-Principal Settlements’ where they have “reasonable access” to neighbouring rural settlements that contain a larger range. Paragraph 6.3.4 of the Cotswold Local Plan states “distance, quality of route, topography and pedestrian safety are important issues when considering the accessibility of services and facilities.” It is considered South Gloucestershire Council should adopt a similar, flexible approach to allow for proportionate, incremental development in rural areas where it would support not only the villages themselves, but neighbouring villages, reflecting the requirements of Paragraph 78 of the NPPF. It will be at this point where the correct reading and interpretation of the DAPs is vital in order to achieve this.

6.4 The criteria attached to Policy DS3 provides a ‘safety net’ to ensure development in rural areas respects, conserves and enhances the rural character and appearance of the landscape as well as any other environmental constraints, having regard to flood risk zones and areas containing heritage assets. As such, the policy requires development to be designed to reflect the local character of settlements ensuring the scale of development is proportionate to the size of the settlement. Further, the policy requires the decision-maker to take into account any other recent development of the village to ensure no adverse cumulative impacts are caused from the new development. The rural housing pro-forma required to be completed for any proposals containing two or more dwellings ensures the Applicant provides the level of detail required to ensure the policy requirements of Policy DS3 are met within a Planning Application.

6.5 Overall, we consider a similar policy could be contained within the emerging LP to help the Council create sustainable rural villages and settlements without causing any adverse impacts upon the character and form of those villages, nor impacting upon the environmental designations likely to be contained within those areas. To that end, we would like to invite Officers at the Council to discuss the opportunity of implementing such a policy within the emerging LP.

19: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Climate Change and Mitigation

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

20: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Climate Change and Mitigation

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

21: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Energy Management in New Development

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

22: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Energy Management in New Development

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

23: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy System

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

24: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy System

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

25: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Creating well-designed places

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

26: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Creating well-designed places

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

27: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Parking Requirements

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

28: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Parking Requirements

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

29: Appendix 2: Draft policies: NSIPs and Related Development

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

30: Appendix 2: Draft policies: NSIPs and Related Development

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

31: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Nuclear New Build

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

32: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Nuclear New Build

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

33: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Oldbury A Station - Decommissioning

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

34: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Oldbury A Station - Decommissioning

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

35: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Radioactive Waste

Do you agree with our proposed policy approach?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know

36: Appendix 2: Draft policies: Radioactive Waste

Do you think there are any other issues we should consider in this policy?

«No response»

Q37

Phase 1 General or Other Comments

«No response»

Q38

Consultation ‘Other’ comments (Call for Sites, WECA and SDS, Evidence base, other strategies, planning applications)

«No response»

Q39

Upload an attachment

You can upload up to 10 files.