Royal Leamington Spa Neighbourhood Development Plan

Object

Representation ID: 71673

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

OBJECTIVE 1
Spitfire remain concerned about a lack of clarity with regard to some of the terminology used in the targets and actions under Objective 1. A clearer explanation is still required of what is meant by the term ‘high quality’ in Targets A and B in the context of Leamington Spa.
The reference that housing should be ‘more energy efficient’ in Target B is meaningless without understanding what the benchmark is – i.e. more energy efficient than what, how is that assessment being measured, by whom and against which criteria? The addition of an expectation that homes incorporate Lifetime Homes / Building for Life standards does not assist in an assessment of the energy efficiency expectations.

Support

Representation ID: 71674

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

OBJECTIVE 2
Target A references the need for new residential development that increases demand for community facilities to ‘make additional provision for such facilities and to protect and support the expansion of existing community facilities within the town’. The target could be clarified by expressly stating that its purpose is not to address existing shortfall in provision through cross funding from new development.
Regarding Target B, this should clarify the expected source of the funds referred to therein. S.106 contributions would normally be expected to be delivered through the District Council as planning authority and would not normally be delivered to a Town Council/NP Group, unless there were specific and identified projects supported through a Development Plan policy. If the reference to funds is to the expected CIL funds to be made available to the Town Council, then draft Policy RLS 16 identifies specific spending priorities for these. However, the priorities listed are all transport related projects rather than ‘community facilities/services’. As such it is unclear if the requirement at Target B, is in addition to RLS 16, or is part of it.
The NDP should provide clarity on what is intended. If it is minded to identify specific spending priorities over and above those of the Local Plan, then the policy should be subject to viability review, to ensure that it is not adding to the burden of residential development such that it impacts potential delivery. Without that assessment, then arguably basic conditions a, d and e may have been failed.

Support

Representation ID: 71675

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

OBJECTIVE 3
Whilst the overall aim of the policy is supported, Target E goes beyond both the Local Plan and NPPF in proposing a blanket opposition to development in the Green Belt. Warwick Local Plan strategic policy DS18 simply references that applications within Green Belt will be determined in accordance with national planning policy. Such an approach is commended to this NDP as well.
NPPF policy sets out the nuances of appropriate and inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and also establishes a context whereby development may be permitted at application through the demonstration of exceptional circumstances. None of this is captured by Target E, which is framed in terms of a blanket opposition to all Green Belt development. The policy is therefore not in general conformity with the Local Plan nor does it flow from national policy, and hence fails basic tests a) and e).

Object

Representation ID: 71676

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Spitfire’s representations to the Informal Consultation Draft consultation raised concerns about Policy RLS2, its relationship and necessity in the context of Local Plan Policy BE1, its lack of clarity regarding sustainable development standards. These concerns remain.
In the Regulation 16 draft NDP, Policy RLS2 has been amended to introduce more clarity on the expectations for housing development in some respects. The first three paragraphs of the policy now include: a requirement for all homes to be Lifetime Homes; an expectation that proposals should aim ‘where possible’ to achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; and encouragement for the incorporation of higher environmental standards such as Passivhaus.
The fourth paragraph of Policy RLS2 also requires housing development to include design features that increase resilience to extreme weather events (including increased risk of river and surface water flooding) and for applicants to demonstrate the water efficiency of their proposals including ‘where practicable’ the incorporation of water efficiency and re-use measures in the design).
Whilst the requirements in the first three paragraphs of Policy RLS2 are less vague than in the previous draft of the policy, the requirements in the fourth paragraph remain imprecise in terms of the prevailing standards required for compliance. With respect to the requirements in all four of these paragraphs, Spitfire remain concerned that the NDP has not assessed the viability implications of encouraging compliance with a more rigorous set of standards and requirements than those required by the existing district wide criteria in Local Plan Policy BE1. Spitfire would also reiterate that there is no support for this approach within Local Plan Climate Change policies CC1 or CC3.
The policy is deemed not to meet the basic conditions, in that its requirements and expectations do not flow from national guidance, nor are they in general conformity with the Local Plan strategic policies. They therefore fail basic conditions a) and e).
With regard to the final paragraph of Policy RSL2, it is not considered appropriate for a NDP policy to state certain descriptions of development ‘will be refused’. The final paragraph also lacks clarity in its references to ‘poor design’ and ‘the relevant criteria’. Spitfire’s recommendation would be that the final paragraph ought to be omitted.

Support

Representation ID: 71677

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

As per Spitfire’s previous representations, the intent of Policy RLS3 as drafted is not contested but the wording of the policy departs from Framework and statutory guidance on the treatment of heritage assets in the way it is worded. It is still suggested that the policy should be reworded to be consistent with Framework guidance in this respect.
Specifically, in addition to referencing the need to assess impact of a development on the significance of the heritage asset, it also indicates that there should be an assessment of the impact on the significance of the asset’s setting. This is not the correct approach.
‘Setting’ is not a heritage asset. Its value is in the contribution it makes to the significance of the asset itself, and the policy should be amended to reflect this. The policy should be clear that the assessment criteria listed within the policy, should be applied in terms of any assessment of the asset’s significance, and are not required to be applied to an assessment of the setting of the asset.
With regard to the criteria of the policy the following detailed matters are raised;
a) ‘…creates a sense of unity…’; it is unclear the sense in which this would be applied. The implication is that only development which mirrors or provides a pastiche of the existing architectural styles of the conservation would be acceptable. However, well designed modern buildings, constructed using materials of appropriate quality, may also have a role within the Conservation Area. Sometimes, buildings which are of their time, and clearly separate out the temporal development of an area, can be appropriate and the policy should recognise this.
e) ‘…retention of existing gardens…’; the policy refers to the retention of existing gardens, yet policy RLS1 recognises that the loss of gardens is acceptable, if made within the context of strategic Local Plan Policy H1. That policy states that garden loss will be acceptable, where it ‘reinforces, or harmonises with, the established character of the street and/or locality…’ Criteria e) should be amended to reflect Policy PSL1 and strategic Local Plan policy H1, both of which accept the loss of residential gardens subject to demonstration of design criteria. If the reference to ‘gardens’ is to the more formal public gardens of Leamington, as protected through draft Policy RLS8, then the policy should make this explicit.
f) Criteria f combines in a single policy tests for treatment of both designated and non-designated heritage assets, whereas statute and Framework guidance treat them both separately and subject to different assessment criteria. It is suggested that the policy be split into two, and that the tests proposed to the different assets be consistent with that contained in the Framework.
g) As with criteria e) the policy should be clearer as to the type of gardens it is seeking to retain. If the policy is simply replicating the protection afforded by draft Policies RLS8 and RLS9, then it is unnecessary and should be deleted.
j) The cross-reference to Policy RLS21 should be corrected to refer to RLS20.
m) ‘Proper evaluation…’; the terminology of the Framework para 189 is ‘appropriate’ assessment, and this should be the terminology followed here.
n) The policy would benefit from clarification of the phrase ‘key views’. Is it the intent of the policy that any development proposal should be accompanied by a site specific assessment of whether such views exist, or are there existing ‘key views’ of principle buildings and assets which specifically are looking to be protected? The policy should be re-worded to provide greater clarity as to what is desired.

Support

Representation ID: 71678

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

The current drafting of the policy still leaves scope for internal policy conflict and uncertainty. Local Plan Policies H2 and H4 referenced, both cross refer to housing mix being informed by the latest SHMA. Draft Policy RLS5 advises that proposals should follow the strategic policies but also that within the NP area proposals should follow ‘any up to date local housing needs assessment’. There is clear potential for confusion here if the SHMA and any local NP area needs assessment provide conflicting housing mix evidence. Moreover, the policy should more clearly define what is meant by ‘any up to date’ assessment. Who is to have produced such an assessment, and with what oversight, rigour or testing? The policy could benefit from providing greater clarity on what is proposed, and how any potential policy conflict would be resolved.