RUSHCLIFFE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

MARCH 2009

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This statement has been prepared in order to meet the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. Regulation 17 requires that before a local authority adopts a supplementary planning document (SPD) all representations that have been made on the draft SPD should be considered.

1.2 The following statement sets out a summary of the representations received during the draft SPD consultation and how the Borough Council has responded to each representation. Where amendments to the SPD have been made these are noted alongside the relevant representation.

2. CONSULTATION

Pre production consultation

2.1 As part of the initial consultation phase a questionnaire ‘scoping’ survey was prepared and sent out to all contacts in the LDF consultation database. The questionnaire was also advertised in the spring edition of the Borough Council’s quarterly newsletter ‘Rushcliffe Reports’ which is distributed to all Borough residents.

2.2 A 6-week consultation took place between 21 st April 2008 and 2 nd June 2008. A total of 56 comments were received. Figure 1.1 sets out the main issues by topic area that were raised as part of the consultation process and explains how these were addressed in the draft SPD.

Figure 1.1 Issue SPD Response Local context Design guide should advocate the use of Local character and heritage is a key traditional building styles and materials theme of the SPD. Section B details that respect Rushcliffe’s heritage. e.g. specific building styles and traditions that brick and clay pantiles reflect the character of Rushcliffe. Design guide should advise on Context is emphasised throughout the importance of context and how SPD. The urban design principles that development relates to surroundings – are explored through the guide not just what they are like in isolation. continually reinforce the message that new developments need to respond to local context. Historic environment – how development This is addressed in the draft SPD. might impact on character and appearance of listed buildings Urban design principles Guide should prioritise the needs of the This is addressed in the draft SPD. pedestrian – create ‘walkable streets’ The speed of traffic – speed limits should Speed limits cannot be set through an

1 be reduced or traffic calming measures SPD. Urban design principles that can be introduced, or speed ‘designed out’ employed to reduce speed are suggested in the SPD however. Reduce levels of on-street parking – A section on parking is included in the guide new developments to include draft SPD. As there are advantages to greater off-street parking on-street parking (it can positively assist in traffic calming) it is not considered appropriate for the guide to advise against all on-street parking on new schemes. It does however emphasis that all on-street parking schemes do need to be well thought through in order to ensure safety and good design. Sustainability and energy efficiency Climate change as an important Sustainability is addressed through the consideration to be taken into account – draft SPD. It would be inappropriate to one representation suggested that all set energy efficiency targets through an new build should be carbon neutral at SPD however as the PPS1 Supplement least. states that this should be done through a BREEEM standards, ecohomes rating, Development Plan Document (DPD). 10% energy from renewable source Incorporation of features to increase This is addressed in the draft SPD. sustainability e.g sustainable building materials Building techniques High quality building materials These are recommended in the draft SPD. Guidelines and further areas of guidance Design Guide should impose height It would be inappropriate to introduce restrictions on buildings such restrictions on residential buildings through a design guide as tall buildings can in cases be appropriate. The draft SPD provides guidance on the scale, massing and height of buildings and in doing so intends to guide future development to fit in appropriately with surrounding development. Include guidance on dormer windows, This is addressed in the draft SPD. balconies, flat roofs, overlooking. Guidance on conversion of farm This is addressed in the draft SPD. buildings Guidance why some designs allowed & It is intended that this will be explained others refused through the exploration of good design principles throughout the draft SPD. Guidance on how to prevent loss of This is addressed in the draft SPD. privacy, overshadowing and dominance Standards relating to length and width of access drives and distances of these from main rooms and adjoining dwellings (to prevent noise nuisance to nearby residents) Environmental New developments should not This is addressed in the draft SPD. compromise existing wildlife habitats

2 Should include guidance on trees, This is addressed in the draft SPD. planting schemes and landscaping. Importance of maintenance in The draft SPD cannot control planting by landscaping owners within their own gardens. It is asserted in the guidance that maintenance of landscaping should be considered at the outset of a scheme. Other Should include a pictorial survey of Guide includes various pictorial ‘good’ examples of 20 th and 21 st Century examples of good design, including good modern houses modern design. Widen conservation area Such an issue would be appropriately addressed through Conservation Area Appraisals, not a residential design guide. Don’t dictate too tightly as this can The draft SPD attempts to introduce produce designs all looking the same important standards to prevent inappropriate schemes whilst leaving enough freedom to produce good design. Guidance on industrial buildings This would fall outside the scope of the draft SPD and would be more appropriately addressed through a separate SPD if deemed necessary.

Consultation on draft

2.3 The Draft Residential Design Guide SPD and the associated Sustainability Appraisal (SA) were approved for consultation by the Borough Council’s LDF Group on 5 th November 2008. The consultation period ran for 6 weeks between 28 th November 2008 and 9 th January 2009.

2.4 As required under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 the Borough Council contacted various specific and general consultation bodies. A list of those contacted is included as Appendix 1.

2.5 The specific consultees, Council Members and Parish Council’s received a paper or electronic copy of the SPD, SA and Statement of Matters. The general consultation bodies received a letter either by post or email setting out the period of consultation, where the documents could be viewed and the deadline for comments.

2.6 The consultation was advertised through the publication of a public notice in the Nottingham Evening Post newspaper on Thursday 27 th November 2008.

2.7 Copies of the draft SPD, associated documents and SPD matters were made available on the Council’s website at www.rushcliffe.gov.uk , and hard copies were distributed to all libraries across the Borough. Hard copies were also made available at the Borough Council’s main

3 reception. A public notice inviting representations was placed in the Nottingham Evening Post on Thursday 27 th November 2008.

2.8 A total of 23 responses were received as a result of the consultation on the SPD and SA. Appendix 2 summarises each individual comment and outlines how each representation was addressed. Where changes to the SPD and SA have been considered necessary these are outlined.

4 APPENDIX 1: FULL LIST OF CONSULTEES

Administrator Edwalton Parish Church Carter Jonas Crest Nicholson (Midlands) Ltd Age Concern Catherine Petti Peice CTC Aldergate Properties Limited Cerda Planning Dalton Warner Davis Alliance Developments Chair of the Governors The Beckett School DEFRA (RDS) Amanda Scott Chairman Federation of Small Businesses (Notts and Dennis Singer Associates Derbys Region) Chairman Grantham Navigation Association Department for Transport Chairman Lady Bay Community Association Deputy Head of Planning The Coal Authority Andrew Martin Associates Chairman Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Society of Architects Andrew Thomas Planning Derby City Council

Antony Aspbury Associates Chairman Pedals Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group Area Development Manager The Guiness Trust Charter Point Development Director Eastern Shires Housing Association Area Manager Natural England Chief Executive Anchor Housing Trust Development Manager PfP Developments Ltd (NBHA) Arup Chief Executive Derwent Housing Association Development Planner R J B Mining (U K) Ltd Asset Protection Manager, Severn Trent Ltd Chief Executive East Midlands Housing Association Development Planner William Davis Ltd Asset Protection Officer National Grid Chief Executive fch Housing and Care DevPlan UK Chief Executive Leicester Housing Association Dialogue Communicating Planning Assistant Planner Development Planning Chief Executive Longhurst Housing Association Diocesan Director of Education Diocese of Partnership LLP Southwell Assistant Plannner First Plan Chief Executive Midlands Rural Housing Trust Director Addleshaw Goddard Associate Director FPD Savills Chief Executive Nene Housing Association Director Barton Willmore Planning Associate Director: Partnerships Diocese of Chief Executive Northern Counties Housing Association Director Beazer Strategic Land Southwell Associate G L Hearn Planning Chief Executive Nottingham Community Housing Director Bryant Homes Association Associate Ian Baseley associates Chief Executive Nottinghamshire County Teaching Director Carter Jonas Primary Care Trust

5 Atkins Transport Planning Chief Executive Raglan Housing Association Director David Wilson Homes B Line Housing Information and Policy Services Chief Executive Riverside (Midlands) Director Henry Mein Partnership Bank's Developments Chief Executive Tun Tum Housing Association Director Lambert Smith Hampton Barkestone, Plungar and Redmile Parish Council Circuit Planning Representative Jehavah's Witnesses in Director The Theatres Trust Nottinghams Barton Willmore Planning Clawson, Hose and Harby Parish Council Director Wimpey Beckett Former Scholars Association Clerk Alverton and Kilvington Parish Director, OPUN, Regeneration East Midlands Belvoir Health Group Clerk and Engineer Newark Area Internal Drainage Board DPDS Consulting (Central Region)

Ben Hunt Planning Clerk Breaston Parish Council DPDS Consulting Group Bingham Access Group Clerk Burton-on-the Wolds Parish, Cotes and Pretswood Dr Goulding Parish Counc Bingham Labour Group Clerk Cotham Parish Meeting Dr J O'Donoghue Bircham Dyson Bell Clerk Hathern Parish Council Dr M O'Donoghue Blotts Country Club Clerk holmepierre point and gamston Parish Council Drivas Jonas LLP Bottesford Parish Council Clerk Kegworth Parish Council DTZ Bovis Homes Limited Clerk Lockington and Hemington Parish Council DTZ Pieda Consulting Bovis Homes Limited, Central Region Clerk Long Whatton and Diseworth Parish East Leake Parish Council Branch Planning Officer The Inland Waterways Clerk Sawley Parish Council East Midlands Regional Assembly Association Brian James Clerk Staunton Parish Council East Midlands Regional Housing Board British Telecom Clerk Syerston Parish Council East Notts Traveller Association British Waterways Clerk to the Council Burton Joyce Parish Council Edwalton Branch of Rushcliffe Conservative Assoc

British Wind Energy Association Clerk to the Council Colwick Parish Council Elliott News Service Broughton and Dalby Parish Council Clerk to the Council Stoke Bardolph Parish Council Browne Jacobson Clerk Wymeswold Parish Council English Heritage Business Link, Nottinghamshire Colliers CRE Entec C.R.O.P (Cotgrave Residents Oppose the Plan) Conservation Officer Nottinghamshire Birdwatchers Entec UK Ltd CABE Cotgrave Local History Society Entente Caldercotte Consultants Cotgrave Town Council Environment Agency Campaign to keep Willoughby on the Wolds Rural Councillor Parish Councillor

6 Capital Retail CPRE (Rushcliffe Group) Environment Not Trams Escritt Barrell Golding Leisure & Tourism Manager British Waterways Mr R. Naismith Escritt, Barrell & Golding LHW Properties Ltd Mr S Ramsden F P D Savills (Nottingham) Liberal Democrats Campaign Mr Shaun Hussey Featherstone Planning & Development Limehouse Software Ltd Mr Simon Seddon Forestry Commission - Midlands Conservancy Lisa Percival Mr T Gallagher Forward Planning Derbyshire County Council Lovejoy Mr T Player Freeth Cartwright Managing Director Smith Stuart Reynolds Mr Tom Kingston Gamston & Bridgford Community Partnership Managing Director The Planning Bureau Limited Mrs B Venes geoff millner Mark Jackson Ms Jacqueline Clay Geoffrey Prince Associates Ltd Marrons Ms Joanne Bellamy George Crawson Mason Richards Planning Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Gladedale Mather Jamie National Grid Gosia Dennis Mathew Gribben National Grid Transco Gotham Parish Council Metropolitan Housing Trust Natural England Gough Planning Services Miller Homes (East Midlands) Ltd Ned Roberts Governing Body S. Wilford CE Primary School MISS JOSEPHINE KAMINSKI Network Rail GRAHAM NORBURY MM3 Design Ltd Nex Communications Great Central Railway (Nottm) Limited Mobile Operators Association Nottingham (South) Christadelphian Ecclesia Hallam Land Management Limited Mono Consultants Ltd Nottingham Fire & Rescue Service Headquarters Head of Nottingham Planning Savills Mosaic Group Nottingham Sailing Club Head of Planning and Building Control Broxtowe Mr AE Small Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce Borough Council Head of Planning and Infrastructure East Midlands Mr Andrew Talbot Nottinghamshire County Council Development Agency Head of Planning Policy Charnwood Borough Mr Bernard Jarvis Nottinghamshire Police Council Heaton Planning Ltd Mr C Narrainen Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust Hepher Dixon Mr C Richards Notts Rural Community Council Highways Agency Mr C Welsh Notts Transport 2000 Holmes Antill Mr Chris Thorpe Office of Rail Regulation Hon. Secretary Rushcliffe Conservative Association Mr D J Loveday Ophelia Marshall Housing Corporation Mr D Peck Organisation Hunter Page Planning Mr Daws P.J Fletcher & Son Ltd

7 Ian Baseley Associates Mr DC Moss Parry Dunstall Planning Consultants Ian D Clarke Clarke Mr Dominic Waters Peacock & Smith Indigo Planning Limited Mr J Breedon Pegasus Planning Innes England Mr J Dunthorne Pegasus Planning Group Inventures Mr J Rosley Peter Draper Associates Jamie Westwood Mr J. Chater Peter Tyers Associates Jane Burd Mr K Adams Peter Tyers Associates Janet Campion Mr K Sterry PG Property John Martin & Associates Mr Keen Planning and Local Government Officer R S P B jon Woodhall Mr M Barker Planning Assistant Radleigh Homes Jones Day Mr M Emery Planning Director David Wilson Estates Joniroke Enterprise Mr M Hyslop Planning Issues Ltd JS Bloor (Services) Ltd Mr M.S. Barker Planning Manager Castlemore Keith Keith Mr Morley Planning Manager Savills Knight Frank LLP Mr Nick Stevenson Planning Policy & Sustainability Manager North West Leicestershire District Council Land & Development Consultants Ltd Mr P F Parker Planning Policy and Projects Manager Ashfield District Council Land and Planning Manager J S Bloor (Services) Mr Paul Kaczmarczuk Planning Policy Manager Gedling Borough Council Ltd Landmark Planning Limited Mr Pavis Planning Policy Manager Newark and Sherwood District Council Laura Johnson Mr Philip Franklin Principal Consultant Entec UK Ltd Mr R Tompkin Principal Consultant John Herington Associates Principal Planner Fisher German Team Leader Policy & Development Erewash Borough Scott Wilson Council Principal planner GVA Grimley Terence O'Rourke Secretary Central West Bridgford Community Association Principal Planner Shanks The Development Planning Partnership Secretary Radcliffe on Trent Residents' Association Principal South Nottingham College The Grantham Canal Partnership Senior Planner Government Office for the East Midlands Rae Town Planning The Woodland Trust Senior Planner W A Fairhurst & Partners Ratcliffe Marina Tom Genway Senior Planning and Economic Devt Assistant Melton Borough Council

8 REACT 21 Trent Strategic Health Authority Senior Planning Manager Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd Redburn Holding Corporation Tribal MJP Senior Planning Officer Leicestershire County Council Regional Manager East Midlands BT Plc Turley Associates Senior Planning Officer Planning and Information Team Nottingham City Council Regional Planner English Heritage Vice Chair Ruddington Local History & Amenity Society Senior Technical Advisor N F U East Midlands Region Regional Planner Home Builders Federation Vice Chairman/ Planning Chairman Keyworth Parish Sherwood Farms Ltd Council Regional Planning Manager George Wimpey UK Vincent and Gorbing Shoosmiths Solicitors Ltd Right to Ride Network Virgin Media Signet Planning Riverside Group Waitrose SLR Consultancy Roger Tym & Partners Walker Morris Solicitors Sol Construction Roselodge Group West Bridgford Advice Centre South Notts Association for Visually Impaired Group Royal Mail Group West Bridgford Community Association Spirita RPS West Bridgford Liberal Democrats Sport England Rural Solutions Ltd West Bridgford Local Area Forum Star Planning and Development Rushcliffe Barn Owl Project West Bridgford Traders Stathern Parish Council Rushcliffe Local Strategic Partnership Westbury Homes Stewart Ross Associates Rushcliffe Nature Conservation Strategy White Young Green Planning Stoneleigh Planning Partnership Implementation Group Rushcliffe Older People's Forum Will Martin Strutt and Parker Rushcliffe Residents Association William Davis Ltd Taylor Young Savills Wilson Bowden Developments All Councillors

Savills (Lincoln office) Your Energy Limited All parish Councils

9

APPENDIX 2: ISSUES RAISED BY PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 1.1 1.1 General. Agrees with the principle of the Design Noted. Support welcomed. Guide. It is interesting and informative and will form a useful part of the LDF.

1.2 1.2 General. Concern that in attempting to appeal to Noted. A companion guide could possibly be developed in the everyone, from the large developer to the individual future. The structure of the guide has been developed to make it householder, the document may be overly technical and digestible for both the developer and individual with clearly marked long for the individual householder planning a small sections for types of development most frequently associated with extension. Suggestion that a smaller companion guide the individual i.e. loft conversions and extensions. The chapters which extracts the relevant information for smaller have been designed to be stand alone and can be extracted

Cllr. F. Mason Cllr.F. Mason schemes could be produced alongside the guide with the individually or even page by page. main document being the one adopted as part of the LDF. 1.3 1.3 General The layout of the guide and the diagrams Noted. Support welcomed. and pictures, particularly where these are recognisably Rushcliffe, make the document interesting. The references to other relevant documents/web-sites are helpful.

10 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 1.4 1.4 Section C2-Page 34. Privacy. Concern that too much Agree. Insert following text on page 34: "Obscure glazing, obscure glazing is required to protect neighbours’ privacy although a useful method of securing privacy, can have a negative in some schemes. In some instances this has led to the impact on the external appearance of the building as well as the amenity of the application property being severely internal environment of the dwelling and will be discouraged where compromised and does not result in the high quality there is considered to be over-reliance on this method of achieving design we are looking to achieve. The privacy problem privacy" can be solved more imaginatively through good design. Suggest that a paragraph could be added to page 34 which says that on overlooked sites the local authority will seek imaginative schemes to guard privacy and that the overuse of obscure glazing will be resisted. 2.1 2.1. General . Would have hoped for the draft to be more Disagree. A prescriptive approach to design issues is contrary to specific and prescriptive. The guides which are most Government guidance contained within PPS1. useful have: a. diagrams showing good and bad examples of development/extensions, b.references to spacing distances required, c. specific car parking standards for different sizes of house/flat etc, d. statements such as if development is within x metres of a bus stop, a reduction in the parking standard would be allowed etc. 2.2 2.2 General Would like to see specific reference to local Noted. Local design or architectural features are referred to in design features which the council wishes to see reflected Conservation Area Appraisals for individual Conservation areas.

Stoneleigh Planning Planning Stoneleigh in new development. Inclusion in this document would be too prescriptive. 2.3 2.3 General Guide doesn't provide a strong impression of Disagree. See response to comment 2.1. the Council's position on specific design issues. Would like more specific guidance even if this opens it up for criticism and means that it needs updating regularly.

11 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 2.4 2.4 General Problem with the 'Space Between Buildings' Noted. No change necessary to the SPD. SPG not that it was too specific but that it has not been updated in respect of PPG3 or PPS3. 2.5 2.5 Section C2: p34 Separation distances - The Agree. Replace paragraphs 4&5 with:. "In Rushcliffe, it has separation distance of 30m between facing windows of previously been accepted that 30m between habitable room habitable rooms sounds excessive if 30dw/ha is to be windows across rear gardens, for one and two storey dwellings, achieved. Would have thought that 20-25m for 1 & 2 does maintain privacy where distance is the sole determining storey, increasing up to 30m for 3 storey would be more factor. It is considered that an additional 3m for each additional appropriate. Distance for habitable windows to blank walls floor (up to 4 storeys) or equivalent height distance created by of 12-14m for 1 and 2 storey would also be the norm. changes in ground level e.g. on a sloping site would provide satisfactory privacy. However, in line with Government guidance, it is recognised that privacy can be achieved in many different ways and the use of alternative techniques for achieving privacy can lead to substantial improvements in the form and layout of the development.

Developers will be required to demonstrate how they have achieved privacy for existing and new residents, amenity for occupiers of new dwellings and the other design objectives set out in this guide if adequate separation distances are not met. It should be noted that Permitted Development rights for loft conversions, dormers, extensions and window replacements may be removed by Condition in any development where it is apparent that such rights may compromise the privacy of neighbours".

12 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 3.1 3.1 General . EMRA's view as the Regional Planning Noted. No change necessary. Body is that the SPD is in general conformity with the vision, core objectives and approach to settlement form contained in RSS8, and the draft RSS which represents a continuation of this approach. 3.2 3.2 General . Policy 2 of the draft RSS8 (July 2008) Agree. "Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands provides a useful set of criteria to consider in the design (Chapter 2)" Government Office for The East Midlands- 2008 has

EMRA of new developments, alongside the contents of the Code been added to the bullet point list on Page 5. Code for Sustainable for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM and Building for Life. Homes already mentioned on page 56 of the SPD. 3.3 3.3 General Would welcome the early involvement of Agree. Insert the following text on page 6: "Where considered CABE, especially in the case of major development such appropriate, for example large scale developments or sensitive as Sustainable Urban Extensions, or any eco-town sites, CABE may be invited to comment on the proposals." proposals which may come forward. 4.1 4.1 General Support the principles of the draft guidance Noted. No change necessary provided that all the references to movement specifically acknowledgement the importance of taking account of cyclist as well as pedestrian and motor vehicle desire lines and that the importance of giving priority in residential areas to the needs of cyclists and pedestrians, as recommended in the DfT's Manual for Streets (2007) is accepted and consistently acted upon.

Pedals Pedals 4.2 4.2 Section C1 Page 22 . As the guide states people do Agree. Insert the following text on page 22 after 2nd para: "Where prefer to "walk or cycle along routes where driver, necessary some direct links for cyclists and pedestrians, which are residents and other people can see them". However, we not open to motor vehicles, may be provided subject to there being would also support modifying the DfT's Manual for Streets good natural surveillance and adequate lighting." principles to reflect the concept of 'filtered permeability', i.e. including some direct links for cyclists and pedestrians

13 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by which are not open to motor vehicles.

4.3 4.3 Section C2 Page 22 The social safety of users of Agree. Amendments to the SPD in relation to the provision of good direct routes away from motor traffic must also be lighting have been made in relation to comment 4.2 above. As the considered, particularly in terms of the provision of good other comments refer to existing residential development no lighting as an integral part of a development. Some change is considered necessary as the SPD is only concerned overlooking also helps improve perceptions of safety with new development. rather than long confined sections as on part of the riverside path towards Wilford from the Suspension Bridge, past the Rivermead Flats. 4.4 4.4 Section C2 Page 22 Welcome statement "New Noted. Support welcomed. pedestrian and cycle routes should be clear, safe and convenient and free from barriers and dead ends" and recognition that "streets designed for low and vehicular speeds (20mph or 30km/h) encourages safe walking as well as cycling and social interaction". 4.5 4.5 Section C2 Page 22 The same principle holds for Disagree. The actual setting of speed limits is beyond the scope of existing urban areas as well as new developments and a design SPD. we would like to see strong support by the Borough Council for Nottinghamshire County Council designating area-wide 20mph zones in both, consistent with the strong encouragement for their wider introduction in the recent House of Commons Transport Committee report on Road Safety

14 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 4.6 4.6 Section C2 Page 22 Important in terms of promoting Disagree. The SPD is concerned with the residential design of cycling in residential areas is to upgrade the substandard new development and not existing development. It would therefore provision in existing housing areas e.g. Compton Acres. be beyond the scope of the SPD. Such areas currently suffer from poor maintenance and are poorly signed and integrated with other areas. 5.1 5.1 General Agrees with the principle of design guide. Comment noted . Support welcomed. After 30 years of despairing at the appalling design quality of houses and flats built in West Bridgford I am amazed and delighted by the way this document encourages good design 5.2 5.2 General Particularly encouraged by: "bland and Comment noted . Support welcomed. imaginative new housing will not be accepted" (page 1), "Pastiche designs…should be avoided" (page 14), "contemporary and imaginative solutions…can…make a positive contribution" (page 14), "It is rarely possible and often not desirable to mimic either the materials of architectural style of a bygone age" (page 32 - the examples on this page are spot on), "...innovative Mr. R. Martin Martin Mr.R. approaches will be encouraged...A positive design approach does not mean repetition of what went before" (page 33), "Contemporary or innovative solutions...are to be encouraged" (page 42). 5.3 5.3 General The test of the effectiveness of this guide will Comment noted. No change necessary. be if poorly designed new developments are not allowed to be built and if beautiful new homes are built. Would like to see a similar guide for non-residential buildings.

15 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 6.1 6.1 Section C2 Page 27 Housing Density . The average Insert text on Page 28 after first para. "Development should aim to densities stated in the guide are too high and will not meet the densities required by Government but also respect the result in the high quality homes and well designed places site, its context and the place which will be the overriding that the SPD aims to help deliver through its guidelines. considerations in determining the most suitable density for the site. Will force developers to build flats and apartments in If the required densities are not possible, the proposals should unsuitable areas. The Council should adopt a more have a robust site assessment which demonstrates why this is the flexible approach on housing density where these case." considerations are used to help guide the housing density on a site by site basis . Consider that the paragraph and text box highlighting the average densities that should be achieved in the Borough should be removed from the SPD with greater emphasis placed on the criteria identified on page 27 shaping expected densities on a site by site basis. 6.2 6.2 Section C2 Page 34 Privacy. Concerned by the intent Agree. This has been addressed in the response to comment 2.5 to use 30 metres as the minimum distance between above. habitable room windows across rear gardens. This is too long and would be highly restrictive on future residential William Davis Limited Davis William development design. Contradicts Council's intention to deliver efficient densities as separation distances of 30m would make it extremely difficult to achieve even a 30dph density. A more acceptable way of achieving privacy in future developments would be to adopt a more flexible approach encouraging different techniques of achieving privacy without regimented separation distances. This is the view held in the 'By Design' Companion Guide to PPG3 (CABE 2001). This guidance is not cited in section 1 which lists relevant guidance yet is referred to on

16 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by several occasions in section 3. The 30m separation distance should be removed from the SPD and instead a more flexible approach to achieving privacy through careful design should be included as this is more in-line with national guidance.

6.3 6.3 Section C3 Page 55 Efficient Use and Re-use of Agree. The first sentence on page 55 has been amended to read: Water . It is recognised that careful consideration needs to "The efficient use of water (including recycling rainwater) should be be given to the use and re-use of water in new residential "encouraged in any" development. developments to help achieve higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes, we consider a more flexible and less strict approach would be more appropriate at this time. Council policy should encourage the use and re-use of water in new developments rather than the current policy which has the positive design of efficient use and re-use of water in new development as a requirement. We note that on page 56 Active Solar Design is encouraged and not required. We consider such an approach to be more appropriate when considering water use in new residential developments and the SPD should be altered accordingly.

17 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 7.1.1 7.1.1 General. Agree with the principle of a Residential Comment noted . Support welcomed. Design Guide. The draft SPD is generally well written and English Heritage welcome the references to the historic environment.

7.1.2 7.1.2 Section B Document lacks reference to 7.1.2 Agree. Reference now made in the document to Scheduled archaeological issues, including SAMs and how Ancient Monuments (SAMs) etc. Page 11 Paragraph added titled residential development needs to take this into account. "Rushcliffe's Heritage" with the following text: "Rushcliffe has 29 Document also lacks reference to registered historic parks Conservation Areas, 3 Registered Parks and Gardens, 25 and gardens, of which there are three in the borough, all Scheduled Ancient Monuments and over 650 Listed Buildings and registered Grade II. structures" 7.2 7.2 Section A: Introduction, Objectives and Policy Agree in part . The 'Building in Context' document is already Context . Welcome reference to PPG15 although the referred to on page 5. Agree that the English Heritage website section needs to state the corresponding para. number for should be included on the useful website list. Amend accordingly. English Heritage Heritage English ease of reference. Would also welcome reference to the Also the paragraph number is inserted in reference to PPG15. joint CABE and English Heritage publication 'Building in Context' on page 5. Would like to see English Heritage's website www.helm.org.uk included on the useful website list. 7.3.1 7.3 Section B : Context and Character . 1. Would be 7.3.1. Agree . Page 11 Paragraph added titled "Rushcliffe's helpful if this section could outline the number of listed Heritage" with the following text: "Rushcliffe has 29 Conservation buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments and Areas, 3 Registered Parks and Gardens, 25 Scheduled Ancient historic parks and gardens within the borough. Monuments and over 650 Listed Buildings and structures"

18 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 7.3.2 7.3.2 Section B : Context and Character. In addition to 7.3.2 Disagree . The SPD refers to the Nottinghamshire Landscape landscape character paragraphs there should be Character Assessment. It is felt that this should be sufficient in reference to the historic characterisation work that exists relation to assessing the character of areas of Rushcliffe. for Rushcliffe. e.g. Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) Study, Extensive Urban Surveys (EUS). Characterisation data will help with the detailed appraisal of historical development and character as required on page 14 7.3.3 7.3.3 Page 16 - the site appraisal requirements should 7.3.3. Agree. Bullet point added on Page 16 : "Historic character include explicit reference to the need to assess the and features and existing buildings or structures which make a historic character and features of any given site. contribution and should be retained." 7.4.1 7.4 Section C1: 1.Note that EH has produced guidance 7.4 Agree. The 'other guidance' on Page 62 amended to include on transport and street issues. EH suggested guidance

7.4.2 2. Analysis of views is an important consideration with 7.4 Agree. The 'other guidance' on Page 62 amended to include regards to the historic environment. EH has produced EH suggested guidance draft guidance.

7.4.3 3. Page 21 - it should be noted that a building or structure 7.4 Agree. The 'other guidance' on Page 62 amended to include does not need to be tall or large in order to be considered EH suggested guidance a landmark. EH/CABE has produced guidance on tall buildings.

19 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 7.5.1 7.5 Section C2. 1. Page 43 - backland development - 7.5.1. Disagree. New text has been inserted in regards to general would be helpful if the bullet points can make reference to development taking account of historic features (comment 7.3.3.) the need to assess the impact on historic features, No additional reference here is considered necessary. including listed buildings and conservation areas. EH has produced guidance on development in suburban areas that is relevant. 7.5.2 7.5.2. Section C2 page 44-45 - building conversions 7.5.2. Disagree. The concept of enabling development is complex guidance is relatively thorough and appropriate. and it would require a lengthly and indepth explanation to deal with Reference should be made to the concept of 'enabling it adequately. As the guide attempts to be as straightforward and development'. Further guidance on this concept is as easy to understand as possible it is felt that this should not be available through EH. detailed in the guide as such a complex detail would detract from this intended simplicity. English Heritage publications are referenced at the back of the guide.

7.5.3 7.5.3. Section C2 pp46-48 - It should be stated that 7.5.3 Agree. New text inserted on page 46: "Stricter controls over stricter controls may need to be applied for listed buildings the design of loft conversions may be applied to Listed Buildings or and conservation areas, i.e.. the guidelines on dimensions properties in Conservation Areas where these need consent. It etc. set out in the SPD may not be appropriate for some should be noted that Permitted Development rights for loft historic sites. conversions, dormers, and window replacements may be removed by Condition in any development where it is apparent that such rights may compromise the privacy of neighbours." Following text added to p47: "Stricter controls may be applied to extensions to Listed Buildings or to properties in Conservation Areas where these need consent. It should be noted that Permitted Development rights for extensions and window replacements may be removed by Condition in any development where it is apparent that such rights may compromise the privacy of neighbours."

20 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 7.6 7.6 Section C3. 1. P56 - Energy conservation - it should Agree. 'Other guidance' on Page 62 amended to include EH be noted that extra care may need to be taken with the suggested docs and guidance installation of certain energy saving measures within historic buildings and places. EH has produced relevant guidance. 7.7.1 7.7.1 Section D. Page 59 - appraisal checklist - additional 7.7.1 Agree Bullet point 3 of page 59 changed to read: "historic text should be added to the 3rd bullet point to read character and setting of site, including designated features such as "historic character and setting of site, including listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as well as wider designated features such as listed buildings and archaeological and landscape features". scheduled monuments, as well as wider archaeological and landscape features" 7.7.2 7.7.2. Section D Page 60 - glossary - would be helpful to 7.7.2 Agree . These definitions have been added to the glossary. include definitions of conservation areas, listed buildings etc. 7.7.3 7.7.3 Section D Page 62 - useful references - should 7.7.3. Agree . Page 62 updated to reflect these suggestions. include PPG15 and the Building in Context publication. English Heritage and CABE websites added to the useful website Would be useful to include contact details for English list. Heritage and CABE. 7.8 7.8 Sustainability Appraisal . Disagree that the Agree. Change the relationship between the SPD and SA relationship between SPD Objectives 2 and 5 (local objectives to uncertain. character and historic settings) and SA Objective 9 (energy usage) may be incompatible. It is possible to introduce energy saving measures that do not harm local character or historic settings but it can be achieved. Suggest that the relationship between the SPD and SA objectives is shown as 'uncertain'.

21 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 8.1 8.1 General - Agree with the principle of the design guide. Noted. Comments welcomed. Would be more useful if targeted more effectively. Good to see the VDS and Conservation Area Appraisals referred to as relevant documents. Greater emphasis should be made on the use of multi-disciplinary design teams. 8.2.1 8.2 General. 8.2.1 The use of photographs and diagrams 8.2.1 Noted All illustrations have been checked for quality and adds interest but often they are so small and dark that changed where appropriate see 8.2.2. their usefulness is lost. E.g. aerial photo on page 14. 8.2.2 . The historic plans would be useful as 1:1250 scale. 8.2.2 Disagree 1:1250 scale plans would be too large for the Instead seem like space fillers. document. It is felt that the illustration serves its purpose as an example of the type of historic maps that are available. 8.2.3 Page 20 - notes accompanying diagrams are 8.2.3 Agree Unreadable annotations have been enlarged. unreadable., would be more helpful on a larger isometric view. 8.2.4 Page 21- would be helpful to include notes on the 8.2.4 Agree Plans showing blue lines and stars on Page 21 have plans that show their purpose, e.g. where are the views been changed to better explain permeability. through, what are the blue stars and lines representing.

East Bridgford Parish Council Council Parish Bridgford East Similarly on pages 28 and 40. 8.2.5 Page 42 - the attraction of the cul-de-sac image is 8.2.5 Disagree The cul-de-sac image is not supposed to be not evident nor is the cottage infill. Would like to see more attractive. These are local examples. local examples rather than those from other publications. 8.3.1 8.3 General 1. Generalisations often require exceptions 8.3.1 Disagree. These exceptions are required. No change e.g. in regards to density, conformity, contrast (page 13, necessary. 27). 8.3.2 8.3.2. The headings on page 27, column 2 are not clearly 8.3.2. Agree. The text has been changed so that the content related to the text. directly relates to the following densities a) urban b) suburban and

22 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by c) rural

8.3.3 8.3.3 Unusual terms such as 'tracking' are used without 8.3.3 Agree "Tracking" is defined in the paragraph beneath where explanation it appears in the text. Agree that this definition could be made clearer. The following text has been deleted: "Standard solutions to traffic calming (e.g. road humps) should be avoided. A best practice technique is to design streets by 'tracking'. The arrangement of development blocks (housing) have priority and then the carriageway is 'plotted' through the space. This design technique ensures that the buildings, rather than the roads, take priority in design". Replace with the following text: "Standard solutions to traffic calming (e.g. road humps should be avoided. A best practice technique is to design streets by 'tracking' whereby the arrangement of development blocks (housing) have priority and then the carriageway is 'plotted' through the space. This design techniques ensures that the buildings, rather than the roads, take priority in design." 8.3.4 8.3.4 Could a better explanation of the distinction between 8.3.4 Disagree. It is felt that the definition provided on page 27 is suburban and rural design be provided appropriate as there is no hard and fast rule as to what does constitute a ‘suburban’ or ‘rural’ style. There are many differentiations with what would be termed a ‘rural’ type of design and likewise with ‘suburban’. As is repeated in the guide, each individual settlement has a unique type of character and style. For these reasons it is felt it would be inappropriate to go into fixed definitions.

23 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 8.4 8.4 Section C2. Sections on infill, conversions and 8.4 Agree. A flow chart explaining the planning application process extensions could be more useful to an unskilled applicant has been included in the guide after page 6. if the design and planning process could be explained, perhaps with a separate section with a flow chart. Should be separated from the sections on road layout and block design. 8.5.1 8.5 Section C2. 1.Help with the smaller development, 8.5. Disagree. Internal photo shows the very different "barn style" good examples of barn conversions, must be available. living referred to in the doc. What is the purpose of interior photographs? 8.5.2 8.5.2 Consideration of the inexperienced developer 8.5.2. Agree Solar panel advice is contained in the English should be given with more help for those wishing to Heritage document that is listed under the 'other guidance' listed include solar energy collection. on page 62 (added in response to comment 7.7). 8.5.3 8.5.3. Page 56. What is the purpose of the images as 8.5.3.Agree Illustration changed to show better image of a green neither are attractive. Would like to see advice on wind roof. turbine installation. 8.5.4 8.5.4 . The impact of such things on historic buildings is 8.5.4. Agree In response to comment 7.7 this guidance is now dealt with in new EH guidance but is not referred to. referred to on page 62. 9.1 9.1 General . Surprised at how open ended some sections 9.1 Disagree. Flexible guidance provided through the guide allows are and wonder if scope for judgement means too much each case to be judged on its own design merits. This approach is scope for dispute. in line with government guidance contained within PPS1. Judgement means every case on its merits and is partly the aim of government guidance. 9.2.1 9.2 Section B. 1. Page 9 - description of Rushcliffe as 9.2.1 Disagree. The Notts CC Landscape Appraisal is referred to 'rolling farmland' is fair but should mention that within it and adequately describes the predominant character of the area.

Cllr. R. Jones Jones Cllr. R. there are distinctive landmarks of wooded hills such as Bunny Woods, Sharphill Woods and Blackberry Hill Woods. Pp10-15.

24 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 9.2.2 9.2.2. The distinctive characteristics of Rushcliffe are 9.2.2 Agree. The following description of WB which refers to street described - but West Bridgford is not described. Surely it trees has been inserted at the end of page 14: "Although there was should be. Street trees are an important aspect of much probably a settlement at West Bridgford before the Norman of WB. The presence of street trees in developments conquest & the church dates from the 12 century, it remained a should be advised in later sections of the guide. e.g. p36. small village until the end of 19 century. By the beginning of the First World War, Lady Bay and the area between Trent Bridge, Loughborough Road and Melton road as far south as Devonshire Road had been substantially developed although Central Avenue was still incomplete. There were a few large houses in Edwalton, around the railway station. 9.2.2 (Cont) West Bridgford has continued to grow ever since. The late Victorian and Edwardian villas on mainly tree lined streets have a distinct and valuable character, as do some of the later inter-war and early post war developments." 9.3.1 9.3 Section C1 . 1. P19 - Can the section about 9.3.1 Agree. The following text has been inserted on page 20 after movements connect with the broader section on noise? A 2nd paragraph: "Where it is considered that multiple use of the consideration about movements should be that they do street may result in undue noise for residents additional mitigating not generate unsocial/unacceptable noise levels for measures may be required". Other noise issues are referred to on people in private/public spaces. page 38. Additional text suggested for the final sentence on noise to read "Planting has little effect on noise attenuation. A 10 metre deep belt of planting is required to produce a barely discernible reduction of 3 Decibels". 9.3.2 9.3.2 Section C1 P23 - the section on parking should 9.3.2 Agree. The following text has been inserted on page 22 after include reference to cycle storage. the 4th para: "Cycle parking will be a requirement in all apartment schemes"

25 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 9.4.1 9.4 Section C2 . 1. P29 - Dislike picture at the foot of the 9.4.1 Disagree . This is intended to show that flat roofs can be page as it has a flat roof which we should not be incorporated in a quality design and that they can still be in context encouraging. . even when sited next to a traditional building. 9.4.2 9.4.2 P32 - welcome the emphasis on warm colours as 9.4.2 Disagree. It would be difficult to include significant examples described. Would like to examples of colour schemes of everything. We would have to follow the theme of good and bad which do not work well e.g new buildings with blank areas examples throughout the doc. of cream or white render. 9.4.3 9.4.3 . P36 - Garden sizes detailed are not conducive for 9.4.3 Partly agree. Allotment provision would be a policy issue or vegetable growing which is an activity that should be covered through S106 Agreements. It would be inappropriate to promoted. On developments above a certain size, e.g. refer to this in a design SPD. However it is acknowledged that the 500, should promote the provision of an area of guidelines on garden size should better reflect government allotments for residents guidance which encourages a variety of garden sizes. The first three paragraphs on page 36 have been deleted. The header "Gardens and boundaries" has been replaced with "Garden Size, Privacy and Orientation". The following text has been inserted: "In Rushcliffe it has been accepted under previously established guidelines that there should be rear gardens with a depth of 10m to the boundary and garden sizes of 110 sq m for detached properties, 90 sq m for semi detached and terraced properties and 55 sq m for 1 and 2 bed properties. However, it is accepted that, in line with Government Guidance, a variety of housing is required, and this should include a variety of garden sizes too. Developers should aim to meet the above guidelines whilst providing a variety of sizes.

26 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by Where these guidelines are not met, developers will be required to demonstrate why smaller gardens are acceptable and explain how they meet the overall objectives of the Design Guide. Gardens smaller than the footprint of the dwelling excluding the garage are unlikely to be acceptable. Larger sizes will be necessary where gardens are overshadowed or overlooked, narrow or irregular in shape or include significant changes in level. Availability of two or more of the following will help in demonstrating why smaller gardens should be allowed. 9.4.4 9.4.4. P38 - Noise section appears to be tacked on at the 9.4.4 Noted . Noise issues have been covered in response to 9.3 end - should be referred to in previous sections. The above. impacts of normal domestic noise have an impact on privacy and perceptions of safety - this should be noted in this section. 9.4.5 9.4.5 Section C2 (cont) P41 - last sentence of 2nd para., 9.4.5 Noted. English Heritage guidance on tall buildings now should the emphasis be on both requiring a landmark included on Page 62. feature to be an advantage and not outweighing the effects it would have on neighbouring properties and the street scene. 9.4.6 9.4.6. P45 - should we reconsider chimneys on barns as 9.4.6 Disagree. Brick chimneys are not appropriate on barns part of increasing the options for future energy sources unless they already exist but occasional flues (which are generally and higher discharge of any products of combustion. more energy efficient) are acceptable as such flues would be found on working barns for such things as curing hams etc. 9.4.7 9.4.7 . P46 Loft conversions - can there be more guidance 9.4.7. Agree. The following sentence on page 46 has been on overlooking as this is an undesirable effect of further deleted: "Privacy can be an issue when adjacent buildings level development. Can the type of statement as made in overlook new windows created as a result of extensions or the last para re: extensions be made here? i.e. to roofspace conversions". The following text replaces the deleted consider the impact on the street scene if adjacent sentence: "Privacy can be an issue where new loft conversion

27 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by properties had loft extensions in a similar manner. windows overlook existing gardens or other buildings".

9.4.8 9.4.8. P47 - last para on side extensions - should the 9.4.8. Agree. Changed to "adjacent" word be 'adjacent' instead of 'adjoining'. Don't think that the section deals with the extensions issue adequately enough. Should only approve these in exceptional circumstances. 9.4.9 9.4.9 . P53 - Wildlife - hopes Notts Wildlife Trust have 9.4.9. Wildlife Trust consulted. been invited to comment.

10.1 10.1 General . Unable to comment on this document. Comments noted. However have some general points that should be considered: 1. Robust design policies should be included within all LDF documents and the Sustainable Community Strategy. 2. Treat design as a cross cutting issue - consider how policy areas relate to urban design, open space management, architectural quality, roads and CABE highways, social infrastructure and the public realm. 3. Design should reflect understanding of local context, character and aspirations. 4. Should include adequate wording or 'hooks' within your policies that enable you to develop and use other design tools and mechanisms.

28 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 11 11.1 General - Best practice section could include Agree. These examples have been added to the bullet point list on reference to Sustainable Developer Guide for Notts and page 5. the EA guide" building a better environment - a guide for developers" 11.2. 11.2 Section C3 Page 54 . Flood risk . 1 EA welcomes 11.2.1. Agree . The following text added on Page 54 after the bullet 1 the promotion of SuDS and recommends that new text is points: "The future ownership/adoption, management and added to ensure that due consideration is given to the maintenance of any open watercourses or SuDS features should legal issues associated with the adoption and be discussed and resolved at the design stage" maintenance of SuDS features. It is important to resolve these issues at the desing stage. Further guidance available through the CIRIA publication 'Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems'. 11.2. 11.2.2. EA is concerned over the prescriptive nature of 11.2.2 Agree . The 1.5m depth and 30 degrees referred to was not 2 the text explaining that open channels and swales in intended to be construed as a single fixed guideline. It is residential areas should be limited to 1.5m depths and acknowledged that this should be made clearer in the SPD. Text slopes no steeper than 30 degrees. Unclear on the source has been revised in paragraph 4 to read: "Where open of this statement. A variety of channel profiles should be channels/swales are proposed within residential areas their depth encouraged as this maximises the wildlife of as this must not exceed 1.5m with side slopes no steeper than 30 degrees Environment Agency Environment maximises the wildlife benefits of open water. The design above the horizontal. A variety of channel profiles should be standard promoted in the guide would create trapezodial encouraged as this maximises the wildlife benefits of open water." channels devoid of any features which are not conducive with promoting wildlife. 11.2. 11.2.3 Section C3 Page 54 (cont) 3. EA recommends 11.2.3. Agree. The following text has been inserted on page 54 3 that new text is added to provide further guidance in after the blue box: "It is important to ensure that appropriate levels relation to flood risk. It is important to ensure that of flood resilience and resistance are incorporated into the design appropriate levels of flood resilience and resistance are and construction of developments in areas of high flood risk. More incorporated into the design and construction of innovative and bespoke design solutions to mitigate against the developments in areas of high flood risk. EA would risk of flooding to new houses are to be encouraged and may be a

29 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by encourage LPA to require more innovative and bespoke requirement in areas of particular risk. Further guidance is design solutions to mitigate against the risk of flooding to available in: “Improving the Flood Performance of New Buildings” new housing. Further guidance available in the DCLG DCLG and “Preparing for Floods” ODPM. publication entitled 'Improving the Flood Performance of New Buildings' and ODPM's 'Preparing for Floods'.

11.2. 11.2.4 .Reference to PPG25 should be replaced with 11.2.4 Agree. Text on Page 54 changed to read "All new 4 PPS25 and the Practice Guide. residential development must adhere to flood risk management measures as set out in Planning Policy Statement 25 and the practice Guide. Further guidance on this issue can be provided by the Environment Agency." 11.3 11.3 Section C3 Page 56 - Sustainable Development - 11.3 Disagree. The Supplement to PPS1 states that local statement that 'new residential development should aspire requirements for sustainable building have to be set through a to the guidance for the 'Code for Sustainable Homes'. We Development Plan Document and not a Supplementary Planning would recommend the designation of a specific 'level' that Document. Such a document may be forthcoming the the LDF the LPA will be expecting. process. No change therefore necessary. 11.4 11.4 Section C3 Page 59 - The 'site appraisal checklist' 11.4 Agree. "Flood risk" added to bullet pointed 'site appraisal should include Flood Risk. Under 'other references - checklist' on page 59. PPS 25 added to bullet pointed 'National national policy guidance' - PPS25 should be included. Planning Guidance' list on page 62. 11.5 11.5 Section C3 Page 55: Groundwater Issues - 1. 11.5 Agree. The following text inserted on page 55: "Drainage Drainage features that can contribute to recharging local features such as porous pavements, swales, storage basins and groundwater reserves include porous pavements, swales, soakaways contribute to recharging local groundwater reserves. In storage basins and soakways. The cleaning of surface all cases developers will be required to design suitable water water through a suitably designed scheme should be cleansing features into such drainage features where this is stressed in the document. considered necessary."

30 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 11.6 11.6 Section C3 Page 53 - Biodiversity - should include 11.6 Agree. The following list added at the end of the bullet point a bullet point suggesting that new developments could list on page 53: "Biodiversity initiatives such as the installation of incorporate biodiversity initiatives within their physical green roofs or the use of bird bricks, bat bricks and bug boxes will fabric through the installation of green roofs, bird bricks, generally be encouraged." bat bricks and bug boxes during construction (approach in line with PPS9) 11.7 11.7 SA Report - EA welcomes the SA Objective to 11.7 Agree. Amend SA accordingly. 'reduce flood risk and the impacts of flooding'. The above recommendations for new text will make a positive contribution toward achieving this objective. SA Objective 7 - would recommend that the production of the guidance under 'option A' should be changed from neutral to positive. The guidance ensures that biodiversity is considered as an integral part of the design of new developments which would not otherwise occur. 12.1 12.1 General Agrees with the principle of the design Comment noted . Support welcomed. guide. 12.2 12.2 Section C2 Page 34 - Layout and Space - No 3 Disagree. Setting a height limit on buildings would be contrary to storey houses opposite each other across a narrow road national guidance contained within PPS1 which states that design as there would be a lack of privacy in bedrooms. 2. Lack guidance should not be prescriptive. If the design of a building did of privacy in existing properties when trees are removed not adequately address the privacy issues then the application can and footpaths created at a higher level or on a bridge. be refused on general amenity reasons. This was not considered when Station site in Ruddington Cllr. B. Venes Venes B. Cllr. was given planning permission. Also EA allowed new housing to be built much higher than existing land resulting in flooding to existing gardens which were at original height.

31 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 12.3 12.3 Section C2 Page 46 - Loft conversions and dormers Noted. These issues are covered on page 46. - design of dormers should be considered on effect of the building. Some like a crows nest on a ship! 12.4 12.4 Section C3 Page 56 - Energy and conservation - Noted. Triple glazed windows are a Building regulations matter - Triple glazed windows - when do we request this and beyond the scope of the SPD. should this be included in planning permission? 12.5 12.5 General I find this design guide good but it does Comment noted. No change necessary need implementing on new properties. 13.1 13.1 General The guide does not appear to include any Comment noted . As a statutory consultee Sport England would advice about the provision of open space or facilities for be consulted on the Open Space, Sport and Recreation SPD. active recreation such as Multi Use Games Areas (MUGAs). It is assumed that the Council intends to cover the sporting and active recreational needs of residents through the companion SPD for Open Space, sport and

Sport England SportEngland Recreation as mentioned on the RBC website. Sport England would be keen to comment on that SPD. 14.1 14.1 General Due to the specific nature of the Trust's Comment noted. No change necessary. remit we have no comment to make on this document. Theatres Theatres Trust 15.1 15.1 General Agrees with the principle of the design Comment noted. guide. Overall we support the Council's intention to introduce a tailored guide to promote higher standards of urban design within Rushcliffe, however, believe that for Entec Entec the SPD to be fully effective it needs further work before being finalised.

32 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 15.2. 15.2 General - 1. SPD would benefit greatly from the 15.2.1 Disagree . It is acknowledged that this is an approach that 1 inclusion of clear local examples and/or case studies of has been adopted in some design guides. However, in this case it both good and bad urban design. At present we believe is considered that if each section was to illustrate design issues the guide is too generic rather than identifying common with both good and bad examples it would result in an excessively design failings against stated design principles, and long document. Instead the approach has been taken to illustrate outlining and illustrating design solutions relevant to the guide with good local examples, where appropriate. This has different character areas within the Borough. resulted in a more compact guide which would be more digestible to the user. Further guidance is provided in individual Conservation Area Appraisals. 15.2. 15.2.2. To avoid repetition and to strengthen the overall 15.2.2 Disagree. The structure of the guide reflects the required 2 message of the guide, the structure of the SPD could be content of the guide. It is felt that local character and improved. e.g. much of section C reproduces what is set distinctiveness is a critical issue to be considered in the SPD and out in section B. that this repetition strengthens and consolidates this importance. 15.2. 15.2.3. Importance of ensuring that the local community 15.2 3. Agree Local Community involvement has been shown in 3 can effectively engage in the design process should be the Planning Process diagram (see comment 8.4). highlighted in the SPD. 15.2. 15.4.4. Should make reference to open space and draw 15.2.4. Disagree Open space issues will be explored through the 4 attention to design solutions for open space in new Open Space SPD developments. Would also like to see further examples of good hard and soft landscaping. 15.2. 15.2 General.(cont) 5. A number of the illustrations are 15.2.5 Disagree. These are simply illustrations to show different 5 not labelled e.g. page 13 which means it is not always materials and do not need titling. clear what the images are meant to convey to the reader.

15.2. 15.2 6 . In other cases where supporting text is provided 15.2.6 .a) Agree. A more appropriate image has been selected to 6 the illustration in many cases appear inappropriate. e.g. a) replace this example. . page 20 - both the home zone images and those intended to illustrate shared surfaces could be improved.

33 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 15.2. b) page 22 - the physical barriers before the road in the b) Agree . A more appropriate image has been chosen to replace 6 b) main photo does not give the impression that pedestrians this. and cyclists have priority in this example. 15.2. c) p24 - the images could do more to illustrate use of c) Agree. An image of the new East Midlands Parkway station has 6 c) good quality materials &/or provide a good example of an been chosen to replace this. integrated transport system. 15.2. d) p29 - none of the images illustrate the point made in d) Disagree . The annotation to the image explains how the 6 d) the text - final image contradicts the message. building responds to its context which justifies its inclusion as an example of good practice 15.2. e) P41 - central image - without showing the surrounding e) Partly agree. This is the rear view of the same building used on 6 e) buildings it is impossible to say whether this is a bad or page 29 as an example of a building responding to context. Amend good example of responding to context. the annotation to the image on page 41 to link the two images. Taken together the two images will better illustrate the point. 15.2. f) P54 - the final image is not considered a good f) Agree. Image of the swale as been replaced with a better 6 f) example. illustration. 15.3. 15.3 Section B . Page 12 - Settlement Patterns - 1. the 15.3.1 Disagree . The positive elements are given by example e.g. 1 'positive elements' referred to under para 4 are not the open spaces Car Colston or the treed environment of Colston explained. Basset. No change necessary. 15.3. 15.3.2. Section B. Page 12 Illustrations (photos) are 15.3.2. Agree. These illustrations are provided on page 15 but it is 2 needed to accompany and support references to agreed that this link could be made clearer. Text amended by examples in para 5. inserting a direct reference to these illustrations on page 12. Also see 15.3.3. 15.3. 15.3.3. The caption accompanying the small plan of 15.3.3. Agree. The caption has been changed as suggested. The 3 Bingham town centre should be amended to read "the plans to Sutton Bonington, Bingham, Wysall and Langar have historic centre of the Market town has a grid structure". been removed and replaced with plans of Flintham, Car Colston, Note that the plans of SB and Bingham are replicated on Colston Bassett and Hickling. This better illustrates the text and P14. responds to 15.3.2 above

34 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 15.3. 15.3.4 P14 - reference to undertaking appraisals and the 15.3.4 Disagree. The appraisals referred to on page 14 4 scope of that work is repeated under the next section on Appraisals refer to the immediate site whilst the appraisals on page page 16. 16 refer to the broader context and constraints. Therefore no repetition. 15.4. 15.4 Section C1 1. P21 - the SPD would benefit from 15.4.1 Agree. In response to comment 8.2 the annotations to the 1 better images and examples to illustrate the point. diagrams have been improved. This addresses this concern.

15.4. 15.4.2 Section C1 pp23-24 - images and illustrations are 15.4.2 Disagree As above this would involve over expansion of 2 needed to provide examples of what represents good the document if examples of everything to be provided. practice. 15.5. 15.5 Section C2 - 1. P28 - plot arrangement - the 15.5.1 Agree. The message could be made clearer. On Page 28 1 message being made with reference to plot depths, is not the following text has been deleted: "However, best practice very clear. Does best practice guidance call for “individual guidance for individual plot depths to be as small and as narrow as plot depths to be as small and as narrow as practicable”? practicable. This uses land efficiently and provides a greater It is considered that isometric drawings rather than cross- number of dwellings within the street. It also invariably results in sections would better convey the point being made in the higher ridges than the local vernacular, and as a result frequently SPD i.e. dwellings with narrow street frontages have conflicts with the height of buildings found in our historic villages". higher ridge lines and are typically deeper than dwellings The following text has been inserted in the paragraph underneath with wider street frontages, with consequential 'plot arrangement' to replace this deletion: “However, best practice implications for the character of the street etc. guidance to maximise the use of land is for individual plot widths to be as narrow as possible. This not only uses land efficiently it also provides a greater number of dwellings within the street. Unfortunately, it also invariably results in higher ridges than the local vernacular, and as a result frequently conflicts with the height of buildings found in our historic villages".

35 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 15.5. 15.5 Section C2 2. Gardens and boundary sizes - the 15.5.2.Disagree. No change, further requirements would be too 2 criteria by which the ‘private garden size’ requirement will prescriptive and run contrary to national guidance contained within not apply in new developments are questioned. Presently PPS1. the draft SPD states that if, for example, through new development the street scene in a conservation area is maintained or enhanced and if, at the same time, residents in a given new development can view landscaped open space and sky from within a dwelling, then the stated ‘private garden size’ requirement would not apply. Application of the criteria as suggested in the SPD does not appear conducive to the delivery of good design. 15.6 15.6 General - On a general point there are a number of Comment noted. The typing errors have been addressed. typos and formatting issues which we have not highlighted here but assume will be corrected in the final version of the SPD. 16.1 16.1 General Agrees with the principle of the design Comments noted . Support welcomed. guide. 1. Will provide a useful insight to Cllrs becoming involved in planning decisions. 2. It will provide a 'yard- stick' against which parish council can review planning applications and make appropriate comments in our returns to RBC. 16.2 16.2 General Parish Council agrees with the intentions Comments noted. listed to 1. make better and safer places, 2. stop bland

Cllr. T. Green Green Cllr. T. and unimaginative new housing, 3. make the best and most efficient use of land available. 4. for old buildings woven into the fabric of the living and working community'. However, planning applications approved by

36 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by RBC in the past year appear to have neglected them (with examples provided) The observations overleaf are some of the many we would like to discuss with RBC planners. Notwithstanding these comments we applaud the Draft Rushcliffe RDG.

17.1 17.1 Section C2 Page 38 Does not appear to be any 17.1 Agree. Insert the suggested additional text to P38. reference in the document to noise attenuation requirements as required by the Inspector for the new houses on Gotham Road. Expected to find a reference to it along with the glazing etc. Suggested additional text: “Where properties are built under an airport flight-path, appropriate noise attenuation measures should be Cllr Hetherington Hetherington Cllr

and Cllr. M. Males Males M. Cllr. and incorporated to ensure the building meets applicable national guidance limits”. 18.1 18.1 General The principles of the document are sound & Comment noted. Support welcomed. could provide a general guide through the maze of information and references to other publications; particularly for the 'non-professional'. 18.2 18.2 General Document repeats guidance available Disagree . Concentrates on Rushcliffe as a place, no change elsewhere - would perhaps be better referenced instead of repeated. Because of this it comes across as a

Notts. And Derbys. Derbys. Notts.And textbook rather than focusing on the special Society of Architects Architects Society of circumstances of Rushcliffe.

37 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 18.3 18.3 General Greater use of analysis of "village plans" Comment noted . No change necessary. Conservation Area and strategic visions for the future would be an asset Appraisals referred to which provide greater detail and are subject to community consultation.

18.4 18.4 General Although the Manual for Streets is referred Comment noted . No change necessary. to one assumes that NCC Highways will adapt their guidance and will accept a less prescriptive approach to highway design which generally is a hindrance to residential layout. 19.1 19.1 General Agrees with the principle of the design Comment noted. Support welcomed. guide. Is an excellent document. Provides a starting point for improved communication between the Borough and Parish Councils on planning issues 19.2 19.2 Section B : Settlement patterns Page 12 and Section Comments noted. The Borough Council does not apply village C2: Infill development P42: The boundary or extent of a envelopes. If these were to be employed they would be decided settlement should be clearly defined by Development through a Development Plan Document which would be developed Control to enable Parishes to refer to specific guidelines through the LDF process. As such it is beyond the scope of this when considering applications for infill and backland SPD. development. 19.3 19.3 Section C2: Page 29 Scale, massing and height. No Disagree. Street scene views are a requirement of planning reference is made in applications to the height of adjacent applications and this information is publically accessible. properties in relation to new development, therefore Aslockton Parish Council Council Parish Aslockton parishes cannot 'scale' the plans. Several applications have been permitted in Aslockton which in the Parish Council's opinion are over height and out of proportion to

the surrounding properties.

38 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 19.4 19.4 General The design guide will provide the Parish Comments noted . A Parish Forum was held on policy matters and Council with a good reference point when considering a further Parish Forum on Development Control is scheduled for planning applications, however, more and better 11 February 2009. communication on planning is needed between the Borough and Parishes. 20.1 20.1 General Agrees with the principle of the design Comments noted. Support welcomed. guide. It gives a detailed, clear picture of what constitutes good design in specific areas in Rushcliffe to assist development in a way that is sympathetic to its surroundings and needs of the local population. 20.2 20.2 Section A : Excellent presentation of guidance Comments noted. Support welcomed. 20.3 20.3 Section B : Excellent presentation of guidance Comments noted. Support welcomed. 20.4 20.4 Section C1 : Thoughtful details provided. E.g. Comments noted. Support welcomed. sympathetic road markings and signage, avoidance of speed bumps, retention of front boundaries to properties to retain appropriate street scene while considering parking options that are more fitting. 20.5 20.5 Section C2 : Excellent presentation of guidance. Comments noted. Support welcomed. Agree that contemporary buildings and innovative design of new buildings can enhance a neighbourhood, rather Keyworth Parish Council Council Parish Keyworth than trying to emulate the design of the surrounding older properties. 2. Agree that infill should always be sympathetic to neighbouring buildings by design and scale, particularly as this is an important feature of development potential where green belt restricts other devt. Also agree that the green belt should be protected from devt.

39 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 20.6 20.6 Section C3 : Excellent presentation. Comments noted. Support welcomed. 20.7 20.7 Additional comments : An informative document, Comments noted. Support welcomed. comprehensive, thoughtfully produced, relating strongly the local nature of Rushcliffe areas to appropriate development of the built environment to maintain and enhance what is good design in the context of this part of the county. 21.1 21.1 General . Client supports the principle of the guide as Comments noted. See responses to comments 21.2, 21.3, 21.4 this is in line with PPS1. There is much within the Guide and 21.5 below. that the Client supports. However it is felt that some areas of the Design Guide contain a level of detail which is at odds with both para. 38 of PPS1 which advises against "unnecessary prescription or detail" and the stated approach of the SPD not to be prescriptive (page 2). 21.2 21.2 Section C2: Page 27 Layout, Form & Space - Comments noted. Support welcomed. Support reference to provision of mixed use development comprising a range of tenures, household types, community facilities and services creating the more successful and inclusive communities. Reference to large scale development looking to include compatible uses and provision of community facilities and uses also

Pegasus Planning Planning Pegasus welcomed.

40 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 21.2 21.2 Section C2: Page 27. Given the inclusion of the Agree. The following text has been inserted on page 27: "On very references in regards to supporting a balanced mix of large schemes, involving the inclusion of district centres, schools densities (comment 21.2) it is surprising that the Council and businesses, a range of densities will be expected with the have been so restrictive in the way in which density is higher densities close to centres and to routes served by robust applied to specific locations (urban, suburban, rural) and regular public transport." across the Borough. It is important the SPD allows for a range of densities on larger sites, from 30dph in some parts to 55dph in others. This range of densities will ensure a suitable urban design response to create a varied development. It is therefore suggested that the SPD includes a para. which seeks to clarify that a range of densities will be appropriate on larger development sites. 21.3 21.3 Section C2: Page 34 . Requirements in relation to Comment noted. Reference to space standards text changed as layout, form and space are too prescriptive and too in response to comment 2.5 above. focused on the achievment of specific standards relating to measurements. This was a criticism of the Space Between Buildings SPG. There is too great an emphasis being placed on quantitative rather than qualitative requirements. This approach is contrary to Government policy. It is also contradictory to the stated aims of the guide (page 10). Page 3 of the SPD refers to Government guidance 'By Design'. Again the need to avoid prescriptive detail is an integral part of this guidance. Reference to a 30m seperation distance between habitable rooms is therefore considered inappropriate. Page 53 of 'By Design' acknowledges that general planning standards prescribing minimum seperation distances can frustrate

41 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by the creation of attractive residential environments by denying the ability to provide privacy through careful design. References to prescriptive requirements should be removed and not form any part of the

21.4 21.4 Section C2: Page 36. Similar comments as 21.3 in Agree. Text changed in response to 9.4.3. See proposed response relation to garden size, privacy and orientation. There to this comment. does not appear to be any justification for the requirement for the private gardens of new dwellings to be at least equal to the area of the footprint of the dwelling. Flexibility should be allowed, perhaps by suggesting that if two out of a range of exception criteria are met this requirement could be relaxed. It is preferable in our view to avoid reference to requirements for garden sizes. It is sufficient for the SPD to seek to ensure an acceptable degree of privacy to the occupant. Such an approach would be consistent with Government guidance.

42 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 21.4 21.5 Section C2: Page 37 It is acknowledged that Comment noted. Amend final paragraph on Page 37 to the existing and proposed occupants have a right to adequate following text: "Where there is doubt that this has been adequately levels of daylight and sunlight. It is unnecessary, however, achieved, the Building Research Establishment’s publication “Site within the context of an SPD to require developers to layout planning for daylight and sunlight : a guide to good practice” accord with a specific guide to good practice. The Guide by P J Littlefair will be used to test the adequacy of available is not Government policy therefore it is inappropriate for daylight and sunlight for buildings and spaces throughout the the Council to require adherence to it. The SPD should scheme. Where necessary developers will be required to produce restrict itself to a requirement that all buildings and spaces cross sections to demonstrate this. between them receive good natural daylight as well as As a rule of thumb, the guide provides for unobstructed views of adequate sunlight throughout the year. the sky from a window above a 25 degree angle measured from 2m above ground level. The angle may be increased if the obstruction is a continuous block"

22.1 22.1 General . Recognising that the document is Comment noted. No change necessary. predominantly focused at a local level we focus our comments on the Movement and Connection section of the SPD and how this may have future implications on the strategic road network for which the Agency is responsible. 22.2. 22.2 Section C1. 1 . Welcomes the promotion of Comment noted. No change necessary. 1 integrated development through road, footpath, cycleway and bridleway networks. HA recognise that addressing Highways Agency Highways local movement issues through new design approaches can erduce the impact of local trips on the strategic road network.

43 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 22.2. 22.2.2. Pedestrian and cyclist routes are important to new Comment noted. No change. Comment noted. 2 development and the inclusion of these principles is welcomed by the Agency. PPG13 paras 75-78 look at how walking and cycling can offer attractive alternatives to using the car for short journeys. 22.2. 22.2.3. Public transport - reference to early discussion Disagree. As developer contributions are only referred to generally 3 with bus operators to access provision within new it is not considered that reference should be removed. It is developments is a prudent approach. However, the acknowledged that Developer Requirements document would be reference to financial contributions for public transport produced separately. may not be appropriate in this document. This may be more appropriate in an SPD or DPD on developer contribution which would also included reference to contributions to the HA and local highway authority. 22.3 22.3 General . Overall the HA welcome and agree with the Comment noted . Support welcomed. content of the SPD considering the approach taken with regard to transport and movement to reflect the principles of sustainability. 23.1 Section C Page 27 . The guide defines rural settlements Agree. Amend the text as suggested. as "(Consisting) of cottages and houses with farms and few or no local facilities". The guide states that this category "includes all of Rushcliffe's villages and hamlets". This is inaccurate as Rushcliffe has several larger villages which do have facilities. e.g. Sutton

Peter Tyers Bonington and Gotham. It is proposed that this statement is changed to state that "this category includes most of Rushcliffe's villages and hamlets".

44 Ref Comm- Summary of Comment Initial Response/Action ent submitt ed by 23.2 23.2 Add definitions of backland development and tandem Agree. Add these definitions to the glossary. development to the glossary.

Reclaimed building materials

An additional change has also been incorporated into the SPD as a result of the recent publication of the Borough Council’s ‘Generic Conservation Area Management Plan’. This was published after the period of consultation for the draft SPD had started. To make the guidance on reclaimed building materials consistent the SPD has been amended to take into account the published Generic Conservation Area Management Plan’. The draft SPD stated: “Reclaimed materials, unless obtained from local structures, are generally inappropriate and, in any event, any advantage gained locally is invariably as a result of a loss of a heritage asset elsewhere”. This has been changed to “Reclaimed materials are generally desirable for immediate repairs to structures where a precise match is required, such as infilling a window opening. However, reclaimed materials are generally inappropriate for larger scale projects such as extensions. More detailed guidance on the use of reclaimed materials is provided in the Generic Management Plan for Conservation Areas in Rushcliffe”.

45