Design - Backland Development
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Design - Backland Development Person ID 1223053 Full Name Paradigm Housing Group ID 5799 Order 34 Number 4.8 Title Design ± Backland Development Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID 1223052 Full Name Andy Meader 567 Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan©s ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination 568 Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not The policy states that Tandem Development will not be permitted. Whilst recognising that there will be believe this policy in instances when Tandem Development has an unacceptable impact upon the character of an area, and/or consistent with the National the amenity of adjacent properties, this will not always be the case. Planning Policy Framework There will be instances where the size of plot, relationship with adjacent properties and established character Feb 2019 please explain why of the area will mean that Tandem Development (ie one dwelling to the rear of another) is possible without resulting in an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character of the area and amenity of nearby residents. As a result, a policy that simply resists this type of development in principle, without considering the merits of the individual proposal, is not consistent with the requirements of the NPPF. In particular, paragraph 122 of the NPPF advises that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land. Policy DM DP 8 as proposed by the Council, is in conflict with this advice because it prevents potential development that could make efficient use of land, without considering the specific merits of it. Policy 3a - Please specify as Remove reference to Tandem Development not being permitted. precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy-level file upload - 5512245 Please attach any supporting evidence 569 Person ID 1223240 Full Name Castlemere Developments Ltd ID 5864 Order 34 Number 4.8 Title Design ± Backland Development Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please Other select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Castlemere Developments Ltd Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID 1211010 Full Name Mr Thomas Rumble Organisation Details Associate Woolf Bond Planning Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan©s 570 ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do Policy DM DP8 (Design ± Backland Development) not believe this policy to be This policy is positively worded in its first sentence but then makes a restrictive statement whereby positively prepared please development will not be permitted if it results in development of a `tandem' form. We consider that this policy explain why is not positively prepared, is restrictive in meeting defined pressing minimum needs for housing (and therefore inconsistent with national policy). It is also unjustified when considered against the reasonable alternative of the policy's deletion and reliance instead upon the numerous other design policies set out in the draft plan that require a scheme to be compatible with the prevailing character of the area. It is acknowledged that tandem development will not always form an appropriate form of development. However, on sites of an appropriate size and in areas where there is sufficient room for potential residential intensification tandem development can provide a valuable source of housing supply on land in sustainable settlement locations, in turn minimising pressure on Green Belt or AONB land and in a manner entirely appropriate with the surrounding area in character terms. Consideration of tandem development will be dependent upon site specific circumstances but should not be restricted through an inflexible and restrictive policy as presently drafted. For these reasons we consider that the deletion of this policy is necessary in order to enable a sound plan. PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why 571 Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not believe this policy in consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 please explain why Policy 3a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness.