Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Taylor Wimpey South East (TWSE) has land interests at "Land at Blackfriars, Battle" which is allocated for mixed use development under Saved Local Plan Policy BT2.

The DaSa reviews site allocations from the existing Local Plan and proposes new site allocations. However, the DaSa only reviews existing Local Plan site allocations/proposes new site allocations within settlements that are not subject to a Neighbourhood Plan Development Order. In these areas, it is assumed that sites will be allocated within the Neighbourhood Plans themselves.

Chapter 5 of the DaSa states:

given the need to be able to demonstrate that the DaSA and neighbourhood plans will together provide sufficient sites to meet the Core Strategy's requirements for housing and employment land, all the plans need to be in place at approximately the same time. Indeed, in view of the current pressure on housing land supply, it is vital for all communities to have plans in place as soon as practicable.

The Council will continue to support the efficient preparation of neighbourhood plans and encourage the early development of sustainable and deliverable sites in order to help contribute to both local and the District-wide housing land supply. It is not clear how RDC intends to ensure that Neighbourhood Plans are adopted at approximately the same time as the DaSa is adopted.

Whilst we acknowledge that Neighbourhood Plans will play an important role in allocating housing sites for development, and their purpose is to allow the local community to play an active role in allocating sites for development, we are concerned that, should Neighbourhood Plans not be approved prior to or alongside
the adoption of the DaSa, a "policy vacuum" will occur.

The absence of any housing allocation policies for settlements such Battle, which is expected to deliver a significant proportion of RDC's housing requirement (475-500 dwellings), could undermine RDC's ability to meet its Core Strategy housing requirement, and maintain a 5-year housing land supply, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In this regard, it is noted that Battle Town Council does not appear to have progressed its Neighbourhood Plan since the initial Survey and Call For Sites in February 2016.

Further consideration needs to be given to the relationship between the DaSa and Neighbourhood Plans, to ensure effective policies are in place to support the delivery of housing within the plan period.
 

Question 4 relates to biomass/wood fuel from local sources, and Core Strategy Policy SRM1 (i), which requires schemes of 100+ dwellings to consider the potential for CHP. Para 6.22 of the DaSa confirms that evidence to date suggests that this threshold is too low, and it is noted that a CHP could not be secured at the strategic development at North East Bexhill, for over 1,000 units.

Since the Core Strategy was adopted, there have been a number of changes to the Governments approach to energy, and standards set out within planning policy. Most recently (via the Housing and Planning Bill) the Government has committed to a review of energy performance requirements under Building Regulations. The Government is clear that it aims to strike a balance between carbon goals and
the stimulation of growth in the house building industry.

The NPPF (para 173) states that, when pursing the delivery of sustainable development, careful attention must be given to the 'viability and costs in the plan-making and decision process/ CHP are expensive, and have the potential to render housing development unviable. This would not aid the stimulation of housing delivery, in accordance with Government objectives. Rather, it could hinder the delivery of growth by imposing increased costs on development, and is not "justified" or "effective", in accordance with the NPPF.

In this regard, no viability assessment work is available to demonstrate that RDC has considered the implications of CHP on sites of any size. It is therefore considered that reference to the consideration of CHP should be removed in totality, rather than a new "threshold" being set.

Question 9 relates to the adoption of new optional technical housing standards issued by the Government. It also relates to RDC's proposal to require a % of dwellings for "older people".

National Space Standards - RDC is proposing to adopt the Governments minimum internal space standards. The National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is explicit that space standards should be 'justified', taking account of need, viability and timing. RDC has not provided sufficient justification that there is a need to apply the minimum standards, a key test of Soundness set out in the NPPF. Furthermore, RDC has not yet considered the viability implications of doing so, with the DaSa advising that the viability impact will be tested prior to the submission of the plan. A full Local Plan viability assessment is required, in line with Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 56-003-20150327 of the Planning Practice Guidance.

From TWSE's experience to date, the additional building costs associated with dwellings that meet minimum standards are not necessarily recovered in sales values, as there is often a ceiling on the purchase price achievable for each type of dwelling on general development sites. This needs to be factored into any viability work undertaken by RDC going forward, and such an assessment must be published as part of the next stage of the DaSa.

Should the DaSa continue to propose the minimum space standards, it is considered that 'Flexibility' (an NPPF test of Soundness) needs to be provided within the policy wording. Notably, the policy should allow for a relaxation of the standards where the applicant can demonstrate that is not practicable or financially viable to deliver the standards.

RDC should also give further consideration as to how the space standards, in combination with other policy requirements it is proposing to introduce (eg minimum garden sizes etc) may impact on the deliverability of individual housing sites. Notably, the space standards and other minimum standards such
as garden sizes may increase the land take of each individual plot beyond that which would usually be assumed. This may reduce the overall number of units that can be achieved on housing sites, in turn impacting the RDC's ability to meet its Core Strategy housing requirement.

Question 12 relates to draft Policy DHG3, which sets out minimum garden sizes for dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms. Specifically, it requires garden to be at least 10m in length. This is not considered to be justified, as there is no evidence to support this. Furthermore, it is not considered that RDC has fully considered the potential consequences of such a policy.

As set out in response to Question 9, this policy, in combination with other policy requirements RDC is proposing to introduce (eg minimum space standards etc) may impact on the deliverability of individual housing sites. Notably, the requirement for minimum garden sizes and other standards may increase the land take of each individual plot beyond that which would usually be assumed. This may reduce the
overall number of units that can be achieved on housing sites, in turn impacting the RDC's ability to meet its Core Strategy housing requirement. This reduces the effectiveness of the Core Strategy, and such would not be consistent with national policy objectives.

Question 24 relates to the proposed policy on comprehensive development. The policy states that comprehensive proposals for the development of sites will normally be required, including where sites are in multiple ownerships.

The policy goes on to state:

In exceptional circumstances, proposals for part of a site may be permitted, but only where it demonstrably has regard to, and facilitates, an integrated scheme for development of the entire site. This will include the provision of appropriate uses, affordable housing, green space/open space and other infrastructure (including
sustainable drainage), taking account of the site as a whole.

The requirement for 'comprehensive proposals' for the development of sites that are in multiple ownerships is considered to be unduly restrictive, and potentially unachievable. Notably, sites in multiple ownerships, including 'Land at Blackfriars, Battle' (in which TWSE has land interest) will need to be subject to a number of separate planning applications. It will therefore be necessary to approve proposals "for part of a site" and exceptional circumstances should not be required to allow this.

It is acknowledged that each individual application should not hinder the deliverability of wider land parcels, and should be developed in a comprehensive manner whereby the proposals have regard to each other. In order to achieve this, the appropriate planning policy mechanism (whether it be the Dasa or Neighbourhood Plan) can set out criteria for each site allocation. Individual planning submissions can then be required to demonstrate, through a design statement or alternative document, how the criteria are met. This approach will provide suitable 'flexibility', in accordance with the NPPF.

Question 9 relates to the adoption of new optional technical housing standards issued by the Government. It also relates to RDC's proposal to require a % of dwellings for "older people".

Access Standards- The DaSa proposes to require 25% of new dwellings to meet the enhanced access standard M4(2) of the Building Regulations, with an additional 5% being built to M4(3)(a) on sites of 50+ dwellings. The DaSA acknowledges that this policy approach will impact on viability, however no viability assessment has been published which demonstrates that RDC has fully considered the implications.

Notwithstanding the need for a Local Plan viability assessment, the flexibility provided in the wording of the draft policy, which allows for non-compliance where the applicant can demonstrate that it is not practical or financially viable to deliver the standards is welcomed. However, it is considered that reference should be also made to instances where site-specific circumstances prevent enhanced accessibility or adaptable standards from being met. In this regard the PPG Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519) states:

Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable^ neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied.

Question 9 relates to the adoption of new optional technical housing standards issued by the Government. It also relates to RDC's proposal to require a % of dwellings for "older people".

Housing for older people - The DaSa set out 6 tentative options relating to the provision of housing for older people. Option A, D and E propose to seek a proportion of market and affordable housing to be either housing specifically designed for older people, or housing targeted at older people. The Dasa suggest that these options should be seen as complementary to the existing Core Strategy policy requiring 30% 1 and 2-bed homes in rural areas and to the above proposed policy on accessible and adaptable housing.

No information is provided on what would be required in order for a house to be considered as "specifically designed for older people". However, it is considered that this policy is duplicating the access standards policy above, which, if adopted, would already provide an element of dwellings that are suitable for older people. Anything beyond this would require specific retirement development/care homes type
development. It is not considered 'Justified 'to require a percentage of housing on each housing allocation to be specialist retirement housing.