Policy 10.8: Open Space in New Development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 13217

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Sport England

Representation Summary:

While the policy is welcomed in principle but concern is raised about the restrictive approach proposed for the use of commuted sums if applied to outdoor sport and in relation to the use of quantity standards for securing all forms of open space provision including outdoor sport. Suggestions for addressing these concerns are set out in full text.

Full text:

The policy is supported in principle as it is proposed that new development will make open space (including outdoor sports) provision on-site or through developer contributions to meet the additional needs generated. However, I have the following concerns:

* A restrictive approach is taken to the use of commuted sums in broad terms. While this may be appropriate for other open space types, in relation to outdoor sport, with the exception of the proposed Dunton Garden Village proposal, it is considered that it will be unlikely to be practical or appropriate for any of the other housing allocations in the plan to make on-site provision for outdoor sport in view of the large land take required to make playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities fir for purpose and sustainable and the need for supporting ancillary infrastructure. A less restrictive approach towards the use of commuted sums for outdoor sports open space is therefore required.
* Where open space provision in the form of outdoor sports is considered necessary, it would appear that developments will be expected to meet conventional quantity standards derived from the current evidence base. While this may be helpful for the limited occasions where on-site provision is made, this is not appropriate for securing developer contributions. In particular, there are no current specific priority facility projects identified for meeting current or future needs e.g. new/enhanced leisure centre projects, new playing field/outdoor sports projects etc. This approach would not be consistent with Sport England's current guidance on assessing needs and strategy preparation which is focused around identifying sport specific needs and developing specific proposals to respond to such needs. Our current guidance does not endorse a standards led approach to provision and the NPPF (unlike PPG17 which it replaced) does not specifically advocate the use of standards for providing sports facilities. There are also concerns about the compatibility of the standards approach with the CIL Regulations due to a more forensic approach being taken in practice to the interpretation of Regulation 122 in relation to the tests of the use of planning obligations to secure sports facilities and the pooling limits that are now in place for developer contributions towards sport where planning obligations are still used. Whether sport is secured through CIL (through sports facility projects being identified on the Regulation 123 list) or through developer contributions secured by planning obligations, an up-to-date evidence base with a strategy that includes specific projects is now considered necessary for ensuring that new developments meet the additional needs that they generate for sport. Authorities that continue to rely on standards and securing developer contributions towards generic infrastructure types (such as outdoor sport) are now struggling to secure provision in practice due to the constraints imposed by the CIL regulations.
To address these concerns it is first requested that the policy confirms that commuted sums will be acceptable for securing developer contributions towards outdoor sports facilities.
Second, to address the above concerns about the use of standards, it is requested that the emerging evidence base for sport is used to identify strategic priority projects (in the strategy and action plan documents that evolve from the Sport and leisure Study) which should then be used for informing what projects will be included in an IDP. Following feasibility work, priority projects included in the IDP should be assessed to determine which will be funded by a future CIL (through inclusion on a CIL Regulation 123 list) and which will be funded by planning obligations (through an approach set out in a complementary Planning Obligations Strategy that is consistent with the CIL regulations and which accounts for the constraints imposed by the pooling restrictions on developer contributions). It should be noted that the inclusion of generic infrastructure types (e.g. outdoor sport) in CIL Regulation 123 lists or planning obligations strategies is not favoured as this is more likely to preclude developer contributions being secured through planning obligations which is important in the context of the likelihood that CIL will only have a limited ability to fund community sports projects in view of competing infrastructure demands. In practice, it would be preferable for CIL to only include a very small number of identified strategic projects and for planning obligations to be used for securing funding for other identified sports facility projects to maximise the potential for the policy to provide adequately for outdoor sport. The policy and supporting text should provide guidance on how provision for outdoor sport will be secured in practice in the context of this advice and the use of standards should be qualified accordingly.

Object

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 13463

Received: 17/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jean Laut

Representation Summary:

Doesn't mention disabled access, parking and routes within the amenity

Full text:

Doesn't mention disabled access, parking and routes within the amenity

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14963

Received: 26/04/2016

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

It is not clear if the open space standards include for semi natural space and playing pitches. It is also unclear if these standards have been fed into the Borough's viability modelling for the site i.e. whether the land take has been factored into the net developable area assumptions for this strategic greenfield site. Nor is it clear what evidence these standards are based upon, the most up to date open space study is from February 2008 which cannot be considered up to date and robust.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 15183

Received: 28/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Limited

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

Supports the requirements of policy. A key principle of healthy living is the provision of appropriate open space within easy access of new development. The unique holistic design opportunities available at Dunton Hills provide opportunities to deliver, design and locate such facilities so as to create the greatest possible encouragement for their use by new residents of the community.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 15685

Received: 05/05/2016

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

The supporting paragraph (para 10.45) to the DLP states that BBC will seek at least 15% of a development site to be set aside for public open space. However, no justification or relationship to evidence work is provided in relation to this and therefore is required before the Policy can be deemed to be 'Justified'

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 15819

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Essex

Representation Summary:

This policy allows for flexibility with the amount and type being determined by the size, nature and location of the proposal and therefore is supported.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 15867

Received: 23/03/2016

Respondent: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Agent: Indigo Planning

Representation Summary:

The wording of this policy suggests that all development will be required to make some provision regardless of what type of development is proposed. Provision of open space or recreational amenities is not always appropriate or necessary in order to make development acceptable. As such, this policy should be re-worded to make clear that in the provision of open space will be required where Regulation 122 compliant.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our client, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd (SSL), to submit
representations in relation to the draft Brentwood Local Plan, currently out on
consultation.
SSL currently operate a supermarket at William Hunter Way. As a result, they are keen to be involved in the Local Plan process.
Brentwood Draft Local Plan 2013-2033
Policy 4.2 states that provision will be made for 7,240 new homes to be built in the borough between 2013-2033. SSL welcome this proposed housing target which will help to address the borough's housing needs.
Policy 6.5 identifies Key Gateways and states that development proposals in the vicinity of these areas will contribute to enhancing a positive impression of the Borough. It should be recognised that there is a limitation to the extent to which some developments can contribute to enhancing the local area due to their nature and function.
Figure 6.1 identifies the location of these Key Gateways however it is of such a scale that it is not possible to clearly identify their boundaries. Each "Key Gateway" shown in this figure covers a wide area of land. A "Key Gateway"
should be a specific defined entrance or link, not an extensive wider area. This
figure should be amended accordingly.
It appears that the SSL site forms part of one of the Key Gateways. Given its
function as a supermarket and car park, much of which is set back from William
Hunter Way, SSL object to the store being included in the Key Gateway boundary and the boundary should be amended accordingly.
The boundary of the Brentwood Town Centre Conservation Area currently includes the southern frontage of William Hunter Way. This boundary should be
amended to exclude this area as there are no factors of special architectural or historic interest in this area that merit protection.
The requirements of Policy 10.3 in relation to Sustainable Construction and Energy are overly prescriptive. Whilst sustainability should be encouraged, policy should not be so prescriptive that it could comprimise the viability of new developments. Smaller scale developments such as extensions and small
refurbishements are unlikely to be able to achieve these targets. As such, a
flexible approach should be applied. The requirement to submit a Water Sustainability Assessment should be deleted as it places yet another unnecessary burden on developers.
There are a number of prescriptive design policies. These design policies should reflect the guidance set out in the NPPF on design in terms of contributing positively to making places better for people.
The requirement to provide a thorough site and context appraisal for all developments is excessive. Any assessment of a development proposal against
policy should be proportionate to what is being proposed.
Policy 10.8 states that new development proposals are expected to provide functional on-site open space and/or recreational amenities or where appropriate, financial contribution towards new or improved facilities nearby with the amount and type of provision required being determined according to the size, nature and location of the proposal. The wording of this policy suggests that all development will be required to make some provision regardless of what type of development is proposed. Provision of open space or recreational amenities is not always appropriate or necessary in order to make development acceptable. As such, this policy should be re-worded to make clear that in the provision of open space will be required where Regulation 122 compliant.
We trust that these representations will be taken into account in the next iteration of the Local Plan, however should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me or my colleague Helen McManus.

Attachments: