Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7321

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The thresholds for the requirement of a Health Impact Assessment (Major development proposals of 50 or more dwellings or of 0.5ha or more for other types of development) are supported.

Support noted, however, it is intended to amend the policy threshold to 10 or more dwellings to align with the definition of major development. As evidenced and required by the Health Impact Assessment of the Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7322

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The proposed threshold of 10 dwellings or more for the provision of new or enhanced publicly accessible open space is supported.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 7323

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The supporting text refers to developments that are not subject to mandatory BNG but the Policy that states that (all) “Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that a 10 positive contribution will be made to regional Nature Recovery Networks and the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and for maintaining or creating local ecological networks through habitat creation, protection, enhancement, restoration and/or management”.

Comments noted. Policy EN2 does apply to all development proposals. Where a development is subject to BNG then Policy EN3 would be applied with the LNRS providing a baseline and guidance on the enhancement of biodiversity.

Object

Representation ID: 7324

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

Robust, local justification, not just viability testing, would be required to justify a 15% (rather than the 10% required by the Environment Act) BNG.

Comments noted and agreed. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 7325

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The Policy should allow for planning permission to be granted where the public benefits of a development outweigh harm to trees, woodland, and hedgerows rather than stating that “Planning permission will only be permitted where the proposal does not adversely affect important trees, woodlands, and hedgerows…”.

Comments noted. Agree that the policy is not positively worded.

Object

Representation ID: 7326

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

No comment, other than that the wording refers to the NPPF and does not add anything to the existing position as set out in the NPPF.

Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7327

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The Policy needs to recognise that harm to historic assets can be justified and be acceptable if the public benefits of the development outweigh that harm. Policy EN13 includes “National Policy for designated assets will also be used to consider development proposals which affect the setting of designated assets” and this includes the assessment of public benefits, but Policy EN12 needs to include this too.

Objection noted.
Policy EN12 sets out how the national policy will be implemented, establishing what supporting evidence is required and how development proposals are expected to be designed and developed to take heritage assets into account. Para 206 of the NPPF states that 'any harm or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification'. Para 207 states that 'where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm (or total loss) of a designated heritage asset, local authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss..'

Support

Representation ID: 7328

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The Policy states that “In exceptional circumstances development may be of a scale or nature which creates a requirement for additional new or improved on-site infrastructure. In such cases, developers will be required to provide the additional requirement, to the agreement of the Council in collaboration with the relevant service provider. This will be secured through Section 106 in accordance with the relevant national tests.”.

If Section 106 is to be required in addition to CIL, further details than “In exceptional circumstances…” is considered necessary.

Comment Noted and the removal of the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ suggested. S106 contributions may be sought in addition to CIL where site specific measures are required to make a development acceptable and these measures are not necessarily in exceptional circumstance. For example, affordable housing and specific highway or flood alleviation measures may be required. S106 agreements will need to meet the three tests set out in the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended):
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
• directly related to the development
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development