Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Comment

Representation ID: 27646

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

This policy anticipates standards that have not yet been published by Natural England. As such it is impossible to test the policy for soundness.

Comment

Representation ID: 27650

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst the achievement of biodiversity net gain as required by draft Policy EN3 is supported in principle, until such time as the Environment Bill clarifies the requirement for biodiversity net gain it is recommended that part H of this policy be amended to refer to all development delivering a measurable net gain ‘where practical to do so’, so as not to undermine the development of otherwise sustainable sites.

Section A: In order to provide certainty, the Wildlife Habitat Network mentioned in the table should be defined on the policies map. The table states that the network will include designated and undesignated habitats, but does not describe what will constitute either elements. Without further explanation ‘undesignated sites of high conservation value’ has no meaning as it is a value judgement of whether a site is of ‘high’ conservation value or not.
Section B refers to ‘functionally linked land’ as if it were part of the SPA in that it applies the likely significant effect test to functionally linked land. This is incorrect. The correct test is whether the effects on functionally linked land will have a likely significant effect upon the SPA (not the functionally linked land per se). In order to be compliant with the Habitat Regulations, 2017 (as amended) the text within the bracket ‘(or land functionally linked to the SPA)’ must be deleted. The final paragraph of Section B further perpetuates this error and should be deleted in order to comply with the Habitats Regulations, 2017 (as amended).
Section B is linked to Policy SP11. The proposed changes we have suggested for SP11 and the HRA of the draft Local Plan will modify the application of Section B of the policy.
Section C: There is no legal requirement for impacts upon an SSSI to be assessed ‘in combination with other developments’ and this reference should be removed as it does not reflect the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Similarly, there is no legal requirement to assess ‘broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs.’ The use of the phrase ‘at this site’ is ambiguous and should be removed.
Section D: The Wildlife Habitat Network need to be defined in order to provide certainty for decision making (see also paragraph 2.81). The policy does not allow sufficient flexibility for mitigation and compensatory measures and should be reworded to reflect this.
Section E. The policy seems to refer to the movement of any species including those with poor dispersal mechanisms? Perhaps the policy should state “or impair the functioning of the Network by preventing movement of species” that are relevant to that Network.
Section I should not reference the Environment Bill, because there is no certainty as to the Bill’s final form or content.
Section J: There is no legal requirement to provide Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) within a development site as a matter of priority, nor is there any legal requirement for the need to justify why gain cannot be delivered on site. The policy should be reworded to allow for offsite compensation in all cases. There is also no legal requirement to provide BNG CBMDC Draft Local Plan Review Persimmon Homes West Yorkshire 10 compensation as ‘a preference for those in the immediate vicinity’ and this should also be removed.
Section J: What are ‘local biodiversity priorities’? If the policy is referring to specific species and habitats such as those defined by Local Biodiversity Action Plans, the NERC Act, 2006, or Birds of Conservation Concern etc. then this should be specified.
Section J: Biodiversity net gain is a habitat based system and while there will inevitably be benefits to species the mechanism is not targeted to the conservation of individual species. We suggest that the last sentence of this policy be deleted as the BNG mechanism does not address species conservation.
Section M is unclear and ambiguously worded. BNG is a tool for gain in biodiversity not ‘well-being’. It is also not clear how this policy will be implemented in practice.
Section N: Ecological surveys should be carried out in manner that is also proportionate to the ecological features present on the site not just the type and scale of the development.

Object

Representation ID: 27660

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst the thrust of Policy EN3 in retaining trees wherever possible and providing for additional
trees and planting as part of new development is supported, the requirement for all new
developments to provide a fruit tree in every garden cannot be supported. Such trees provided within earlier phases cannot necessarily be protected during the construction of later phases, and trees provided within private gardens cannot be secured in perpetuity. There are also practical difficulties with tree planting in rear gardens which often also accommodate underground utility infrastructure inconsistent with the planting of trees.

This requirement is therefore considered to be unduly onerous and unjustified given the requirements for biodiversity covered in other draft plan policies and environmental legislation, and are unlikely to contribute to meaningful or long term biodiversity gains.

Section C: Hedgerows contains trees, but the policy is for Trees and Woodland, not hedgerows. Suggest that ‘and hedgerow cover’ is removed. Hedgerows are legally protected and inclusion in this policy is not necessary to ensure protection.
Section D: Application of this policy could cause potential problems for properties with relatively small gardens. The policy should be amended to specify planting in gardens above a particular size.
Section E: Application of this policy is problematic because there may not be sufficient space to accommodate three new trees for every tree that is lost, particularly on smaller development sites. Developers also risk planting trees onto semi-natural habitats that have equal if not greater value than planted trees in order to fulfil the requirements of the policy. The policy needs to be reworded to provide flexibility and indicate that planting will be expected unless there are over-riding reasons.
Section G: Could CBMDC serve notice of a TPO at any time before, during and after the period of a planning application? If mitigation or compensation significantly outweighs the loss of trees within a development site, for example to create other, more appropriate semi-natural habitats, then there is a risk of protecting trees of an inferior quality to what is being proposed in order to secure short-term objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 27760

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Persimmon supports this policy which will assist in facilitating the commencement of development at the earliest opportunity in order to increase the supply of housing and specifically address Council’s long-standing inability to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing. The prioritisation of large sites is also welcomed and supported for the reasons referred to in the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 27761

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Developments should achieve a minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare unless site specific considerations indicate otherwise under Policy HO2.

This minimum net density is considered by Persimmon to be reasonable and justified for the majority of new housing developments. Reference within the policy to site specific considerations and local area characteristics is welcomed to ensure that the policy does not undermine the development of sites which cannot, by virtue of site specific constraints, achieve
these densities but continue to encourage the best and most efficient use of land relative to local circumstances.

Support

Representation ID: 27765

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Persimmon supports the zoning of housing market areas, and the use of separate targets for brownfield development in recognition of the higher cost of developing this kind of land, as set out in draft Policy HO5: Affordable Housing in order to provide an appropriate level of affordable housing provision relative to the varying needs and levels of viability across the District. However, a number of proposed changes since Policy HO11 of the adopted Core Strategy (2017)
threaten to undermine the delivery of affordable housing.
-Increased target from "up to 30%' - considers values in Wharfedale have not risen sufficiently to justify this increase.
-Proportion of social rented accommodation required by HO5 considered too high not comparable to neighboring authorities. Compounding affect on viability.

The policy does allow for affordable housing provision to be less than the target provision where viability evidence demonstrates that there are development costs which would otherwise prejudice the implementation of the proposal having regard to individual site conditions and Policy ID3. This flexibility is welcomed, and is considered a necessary proviso given the possibility for unknown abnormal costs to affect the development of any site within any housing market area. Similarly, the possibility for a financial contribution to be made in lieu of on-site affordable housing provision, subject to appropriate justification, is also supported. However, such provision should not be used as a reason to inflate the affordable housing requirement and a viable and workable affordable housing policy has to be the starting point if CBMDC is to achieve the level of market and affordable housing which is needed across the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 27766

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst the policy support afforded to self-build and custom housebuilding in national planning policy is recognised, delivering such plots are impractical for a volume housebuilder for a number of reasons, including difficulties in providing service connections and agreeing the various adoption agreements and standards, and ensuring satisfactory health and safety and construction management consistent with the wider site.

Provision for self-build opportunities are likely to be better supported on a smaller scale sites, incorporating windfall opportunities and/or Council owned land where such opportunities can be more easily incorporated.
Furthermore, given the number of sites yielding over 100 units proposed within the draft Local Plan, it is questionable whether there would ever be sufficient demand for the scale of self-build opportunities that this would generate. As such, providing for a minimum requirement solely on the larger, and defined ‘strategic sites’ would more appropriately deal with the national planning policy requirement to support self-build and custom housebuilding in line with the approach adopted by other nearby authorities, notably Harrogate and York.
It is therefore recommended that point c of policy HO6 be removed, with the remainder of the policy providing general support for self-build and custom housing where this can be provided in line with identified demand being and with regard to viability considerations and site-specific circumstances. If the provision of a minimum of proportion of self-build plots is to remain a policy requirement then this should apply only to the larger scale, strategic sites (400 units plus).

Object

Representation ID: 27776

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst this aim is supported unreservedly, it is considered that the requirement for 100% of new homes to meet Requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations, as required by Policy HO9, is wholly onerous.
Requirement M4(2) is not a mandatory Building Regulations requirement and in order to meet this requirement, Persimmon would need to completely redesign a significant number of the house types within its standard range. The resulting impacts would be prevalent in plot size, development density and, ultimately, site viability.
It is questioned whether there is a need to impose such stringent requirements on every residential development. Rather, it is recommended that such design measures are only implemented when there is robust evidence to justify the need in a particular location. Indeed, national legislation is currently evolving on this matter through building regulations, and the overwhelming position of the industry is that these matters should be addressed through this avenue. Persimmon objects to CBMDC seeking to impose ‘over and above’ requirements, particularly where there is no evidence that these are required in the district. Should CBMDC wish to retain reference to a minimum proportion of properties, it is recommended that this is reduced to no more than 25%.
Reference to the national space standards as set out within Policy HO7 is welcomed in ensuring the achievement of good quality residential accommodation, and which all Persimmon’s standard house types meet or exceed.

Support

Representation ID: 27777

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The provision of electric car charging points, and guidance regarding its provision, as set out within Policy SP9 is supported in assisting with a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. However, the provision of electric car charging points within communal parking areas is often difficult to facilitate and manage depending upon the service and ongoing management arrangements in place. This should be factored into the policy and reference made to the provision of one charging point per 10 parking spaces on new non-residential development with dedicated parking areas ‘where possible’.

Comment

Representation ID: 27778

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

References in Policy EN10 to providing site wide heating and cooling systems ‘where reasonable and practical’ is welcomed in recognition of the practicalities of providing such systems depending on site size and other site-specific characteristics. Reference within the policy to the requirements for developments to connect to wider district heating and cooling networks for energy supply and export, and the achievement of zero net-carbon emissions and Future Homes Standard by 2025, should also make provision for such systems and achievements to be achieved where this is practical and viable to ensure that unduly onerous requirements do not have the potential to undermine otherwise successful and sustainable schemes.