Section 8 Detailed design

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Support

Residential Design Guide

Representation ID: 71133

Received: 04/05/2018

Respondent: Rowington Parish Council

Representation:

welcomes the requirement to submit a Design and Access Statement but note that the proposed guidance give less protection that the current 2008 guidance as far as rural villages and conservation areas are concerned, particularly with regard to density and design. The reference to Garden City principles should be removed as this no longer appears in the current draft National Planning Policy Framework. The Parish Council also suggests that a simplified, but mandatory form of Design and Access Statement
concerned at the reference to "innovative designs where they complement their surroundings and stipulates that buildings, which make a statement may be appropriate in an otherwise uninteresting street scene or on corner sites". This type of design will often be inappropriate in a rural setting.

Full text:

Rowington Parish Council objects to the Residential Design Guide V8 as currently drafted for the following reasons:

1. Parish and Town Councils are the tier of local government that are
closest to the community that they serve and are best placed to comment on planning proposals within their locality. There is no mention of the role or importance of Parish or Town Councils in relation to planning decisions in this document. This must be corrected, and the views of the relevant Parish or Town Council identified as a significant factor in any planning decision.

2. The Residential Design Guide V8 focusses almost exclusively on the
urban environment. There is no mention of the need to consider the relevant Village or Parish Design Statement when building in a rural setting. This is a significant oversight which limits the utility of the guidance and should be corrected in any final version.

3. As a Parish Council, Rowington has suffered from planning decisions
that fail to take account of the unique nature of the rural environment such as widely spaced housing and the historic architectural styles present in many villages and hamlets. Guidance on planning density and design that is suitable in an urban setting will often be completely inappropriate in a rural environment. The guidance must reflect the need to take account of the views of Parish Councils when determining planning decisions in a rural environment.

4. Rowington Parish Council welcomes the requirement to submit a Design
and Access Statement but note that the proposed guidance give less protection that the current 2008 guidance as far as rural villages and conservation areas are concerned, particularly with regard to density and design. The reference to Garden City principles should be removed as this no longer appears in the current draft National Planning Policy Framework. The Parish Council also suggests that a simplified, but mandatory form of Design and Access Statement is required for all planning applications. The length and complexity of the current proposed guidance means that much of the guidance will be ignored in practice.

5. The Parish Council is concerned at the reference to "innovative
designs where they complement their surroundings and stipulates that buildings, which make a statement may be appropriate in an otherwise uninteresting street scene or on corner sites". This type of design will often be inappropriate in a rural setting and reinforces the need to take account of the views of Parish and Town Councils when planning decisions are made.

Comment

Residential Design Guide

Representation ID: 71143

Received: 17/05/2018

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

Representation:

KTC Points out that there appears to be a contradiction between Fig 5 and Fig 6 top right. It was felt that the extended roof should be hipped in both cases?
Welcomes the introduction of amenity space standards for houses and flats. The Town Council is not clear whether this will apply to the effect of extensions in gardens?
Questions the requirements in Fig 21 as possibly irrelevant as Permitted Development rights surely exceed them?
Photo examples would be much more use if it clearly indicated which are considered Good examples and which Bad, possibly by the use of ticks and crosses as earlier in the Guide

Full text:

Further to this matter, please find attached the Kenilworth Town Council response to this consultation.
Members also made the points below. These are brought to your attention but not included. They are just typo and layout comments.

KTC Points out that there appears to be a contradiction between Fig 5 and Fig 6 top right. It was felt that the extended roof should be hipped in both cases?

Kenilworth Town Council:
1. Welcomes the revising and updating of this essential Guide which is referred to in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
2. Welcomes the introduction of amenity space standards for houses and flats. The Town Council is not clear whether this will apply to the effect of extensions in gardens?
3. Questions the requirements in Fig 21 as possibly irrelevant as Permitted Development rights surely exceed them?
4. Suggests that the Photo examples would be much more use if it clearly indicated which are considered Good examples and which Bad, possibly by the use of ticks and crosses as earlier in the Guide. Members felt that this may be obvious to the expert but not to the layman. In some cases it is not even clear from the caption.