North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Search Representations

Results for St Modwen Developments Ltd search

New search New search

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Policy SS4: Former Biwaters Site, Clay Cross

Representation ID: 7158

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words.

The Policy is generally supported. However, there is a need for amendments to be made to ensure the policy is Effective and therefore it is not Sound as presently drafted. These amendments relate to paragraph 4.48, referring to the planning application, the title of the policy, criteria B,D and G. These are listed in the appendix and changes to the Plan.

Change suggested by respondent:

The appendix shows suggested rewording in tracked changes.

These refer to the following:

4.48 states: A revised outline application was received in June 2017 to reflect current market conditions, which has led to an adjustment to the site boundary. It is expected the site will deliver 825 new homes during the plan period. This is now out of date as planning permission has recently been approved for the site in March 2018, subject to completion of the s106 Legal Agreement.

Policy SS4 - Change the Policy Title to Egstow Park, to reflect the site's current reference.

Amend Criterion B to remove reference to 8 hectares of employment land. The recently approved application allowed for 5 hectares of B Class employment land. There is no justification for the 8ha as indicated in the policy reference, which it would appear is a 'left over' position from earlier proposals on the site which were not delivered.

Amend Criterion D by removing reference to a range of small shops catering for local needs. This should reflect the current approved proposals on the site, which include retail, commercial (including public house and A1/A2A3/A4/A5 uses), hotel (c1) and a care home (C2).

Amend Criterion G by altering the reference to precluding the future provision of rail access. The proposals do not and never have allowed for rail access within the site. What has been allowed for (in the recently approved application) is for a route through the site to a potential railway station outside the site boundary. The policy needs re-wording to clarify that position. However, RPS has not had sight of any substantive evidence justifying either the need for or delivery of a railway station near to the site.

Amend Criterion H to acknowledge the proposals for the site will deliver a new footpath connection to the boundary edge of Tupton Hall School. No other footpath proposals/enhancements have been allowed for.

Full text:

The Policy is generally supported. However, there is a need for amendments to be made to ensure the policy is Effective and therefore it is not Sound as presently drafted.

4.48 states: A revised outline application was received in June 2017 to reflect current market conditions, which has led to an adjustment to the site boundary. It is expected the site will deliver 825 new homes during the plan period. This is now out of date as planning permission has recently been approved for the site in March 2018, subject to completion of the s106 Legal Agreement.

Policy SS4 - Change the Policy Title to Egstow Park, to reflect the site's current reference.

Amend Criterion B to remove reference to 8 hectares of employment land. The recently approved application allowed for 5 hectares of B Class employment land. There is no justification for the 8ha as indicated in the policy reference, which it would appear is a 'left over' position from earlier proposals on the site which were not delivered.

Amend Criterion D by removing reference to a range of small shops catering for local needs. This should reflect the current approved proposals on the site, which include retail, commercial (including public house and A1/A2A3/A4/A5 uses), hotel (c1) and a care home (C2).

Amend Criterion G by altering the reference to precluding the future provision of rail access. The proposals do not and never have allowed for rail access within the site. What has been allowed for (in the recently approved application) is for a route through the site to a potential railway station outside the site boundary. The policy needs re-wording to clarify that position. However, RPS has not had sight of any substantive evidence justifying either the need for or delivery of a railway station near to the site.

Amend Criterion H to acknowledge the proposals for the site will deliver a new footpath connection to the boundary edge of Tupton Hall School. No other footpath proposals/enhancements have been allowed for.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside

Representation ID: 7161

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Council officer has amended summary to approximately 100 words.

The Policy is generally supported. However, there is a need for amendments to be made to ensure the policy is Effective and therefore it is not Sound as presently drafted.

The policy is very restrictive and would not facilitate development adjacent to but outside the settlement boundary. It is almost impossible to know what proposals may come forward during the plan period that could have wider community, social or wider benefits, that would be inconsistent with the policy as currently drafted. The policy needs to be more positively worded to allow for such circumstances to occur without representing a departure from the plan. An example is given in the full text.

Given that Policy SS2 has appropriately identified the housing provision figure as a minimum requirement, it is appropriate to amend Policy SS9 to allow for the development of sites outside the settlement boundary.

Change suggested by respondent:

The appendix shows suggested rewording in tracked changes.

Criteria f and g should read:
f. It relates to a development which also has a wider community and/or social benefit or would secure the retention and/or enhancement of a community facility; or
g. It represents sustainable development and/or where the economic, social and environmental benefits are not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by any adverse impacts of the development and/or is in accordance with the policies of an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.

Full text:

The Policy is generally supported. However, there is a need for amendments to be made to ensure the policy is Effective and therefore it is not Sound as presently drafted.

The policy as drafted is very restrictive and would not facilitate development adjacent to but outside the settlement boundary. It is almost impossible to know what proposals may come forward during the plan period that could have wider community, social or wider benefits, that would be inconsistent with the policy as currently drafted. The policy needs to be more positively worded to allow for such circumstances to occur without representing a departure from the plan.

An example of this is the current proposal by St Modwen at its Egstow Park site. The approved scheme includes redevelopment of the strategic site as identified on the Proposals Map. However, the scheme as consented also allows/requires the provision of built development in the form of a new footpath which will have a solid surface and low level lighting connecting the development to Tupton Hall School. The precise location and form of the new path has yet to be established and would be subject to a new application, it would nevertheless be located outside the settlement boundary and as currently drafted would be inconsistent with Policy SS9.

Whilst this is just one example, it demonstrates that the policy requires a modification to ensure that future planning applications which have community backing and are related to proposals with a wider community or social benefit can be accommodated within the policy provisions of the plan as they exist.

Given that Policy SS2 has appropriately identified the housing provision figure as a minimum requirement, it is appropriate to amend Policy SS9 to allow for the development of sites outside the settlement boundary (as a listed exception) which represent sustainable development, where their economic, social and environmental benefits are not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by any adverse impacts of that development.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Policy SS11: Local Settlement Gaps

Representation ID: 7296

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

The Policy is generally supported. However, there is a need for amendments to ensure the policy is Effective and therefore it is not Sound as presently drafted.

The policy is ambiguous, specifically in relation to Criterion 1a (iii). There may be instances where development is required within the settlement gap, that is connected with proposals for an adjoining site which have community and economic benefits, and on its own would not have a harmful impact upon the function of the Settlement Gap as a whole.

An example is the proposal at the Egstow Park Site for a new footpath from the site, through the Settlement Gap to Tupton Hall School. Whilst this would have an impact upon the undeveloped character of the area it would not have a harmful impact upon the Settlement Gap as a whole.
The policy should be amended to reflect this.

Change suggested by respondent:

1a (III): change the last word 'land' into 'Settlement Gap area'

Full text:

The Policy is generally supported. However, there is a need for amendments to be made to ensure the policy is Effective and therefore it is not Sound as presently drafted.
As currently drafted the policy is ambiguous, specifically in relation to Criterion
1a (iii). There may be instances where development is required within the settlement gap, that is connected with proposals for an adjoining site which have wide ranging community and economic benefits, but it would impact on the undeveloped character of that land, but on its own, it would not have a harmful impact upon the function of the Settlement Gap as a whole.
An example of this is the proposal at the Egstow Park Site by St Modwen, as approved at Committee for a new footpath from the Egstow Park site, through the Settlement Gap designated area, up to Tupton Hall School. Whilst this would have an impact upon the undeveloped character of the area of the footpath it would not have a harmful impact upon the Settlement Gap Policy designation as a whole.
The policy should be amended to reflect this.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.