As folk will know the Local Plan is being discussed - numbers of houses and more - the trouble is the 'more' has not had much of a discussion. Greens presented a paper previously during the last consultation - as noted then housing is more than just quantity - quality is crucial - anyway I thought it was worth sharing some of the thoughts we discussed back in early September. This was not a complete list but went with earlier points raised. Clearly some of the items like points 11 and 12 are not within remit of planning but need to be considered as part of whole approach...
Since early September there have been meetings with planners to discuss these and other issues.....
1.
There is a need for a challenging definition of
sustainable development – one suggestion is: “Living
within the limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity –
development should improve our environment and ensure that the natural
resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations.”[i]
2.
Any development
proposals must show how the development increases the sustainability of the
wider community in which it is situated – through improved transport, increased
biodiversity, providing affordable housing, workspace, food growing space,
energy efficiency etc. The criteria agreed would become a clear ‘Stroud New
Build Standard’ which could be used by developers and local communities alike
to decide if the threshold has been met. (i.e we shouldn’t look at a
development as ‘sustainable’ in isolation – but in how it interacts and affects
the community in which it is situated – e.g. in some villages additional
housing may keep the school, shop or pub open).
3. New development should include innovative ways of including our
ageing population as active members of vibrant communities with appropriate
housing design and community planning. Specific encouragement on development
that include lifetime homes, shared facilities designed to support the needs of
older people in a multi-age development (such as co-housing), mixed house and
garden sizes.
4.
Planning
presumption in favour of protecting local assets such as shops, POs, pubs etc. A
presumption against change of use where this removes/reduces community assets
and an opportunity for ‘community purchase’ before change of use and the loss
of the asset is allowed.
5.
New developments
to include high quality public and community space not dominated by car access
and parking – but for children playing, relaxing, biodiversity, growing food,
walking etc. Car parking kept to the periphery, developments only permitted
which have a low % of total land allocated to car access and parking. (What %?)
New development to include adequate convenient storage for bicycles, mobility
scooters and pushchairs. Charging points for electric cars to also be included.
6.
Greenfield
development over a certain size should require that the developer converts a
proportion of Stroud District’s derelict brownfield sites either to productive
employment space or through decontamination etc. back to greenfield[ii].
Greenfield development should also
include on-site biodiversity provision to ensure the overall impact is
positive.
7.
New developments
to be zero carbon, include
allotments or land for growing food, require strategies for reducing car
dependence, sustainable urban drainage approaches (SUDS) and to encourage community
building approaches such as co-housing.
8.
All developments over
four housing units on any site must meet the condition that 30% of housing
should be affordable. At least
half of the affordable housing to be either socially rented or shared equity.
The Council to pursue ways of maintaining affordability, including the use of
legal instruments and working through Community Land Trusts and similar
mechanisms. There should be a presumption against converting small properties
into large, expensive ones through large extensions.
9.
A planning
presumption in favour of householder renewable energy, including householder wind
turbines up to 25kw and community owned/benefit wind turbines up 500kw
throughout the District (including AONB) unless there are clear reasons why
this is not suitable. Community owned wind turbines could be subject to the
approval of a neighbourhood poll.
10. Ending of the Council Tax discount for second and empty/derelict
homes. Compulsory purchase to be used to bring long-term unoccupied homes back
into use.
11. Unused employment land and buildings to be subject to business
rates, with the money used to provide grants and loans to bring employment
premises back into affordable use. Rate rebate to be available for creative and
socially beneficial interim use[iii].
12. A clear target to be set for the District of two new jobs for each
new house until the current out-commuting in-balance is ended. This may include
a focus on mixed-use development, more live-work provision and the development
of employment land in tandem to housing development.
13. If there is any significant housing development West of
Stonehouse, it should include a new railway station on the line to Bristol.
14. Some presumption in favour of ‘low impact communities’ and
self-build schemes – as allowable exceptions on suitable sites outside
development limits and on land not zoned for housing within development
limits. Such development would
have[iv]:
a.
A carbon
footprint at least 40% below the local average, including code for sustainable
homes level 5 or better;
b.
Demonstrable car
use less than one third of conventional housing units;
c.
Workspace for 10%
of resident adults (20% in rural areas);
d.
35% of units to
be affordable;
e.
Inclusive
provision for creative ageing;
f.
Provision for
on-site food production and/or a green Food Plan;
g.
Shared facilities
also available to the wider local community.
15. Encourage mixed use developments as the norm, and live-work units as a
percentage (33%?) of all housing in a development. This can be additional room
in the house for office and home working, small units added to homes, as either
ground floor workspace, garage-like annexes, or clustered units adjacent to a
housing scheme[v].
16. Communities
are able to allocate areas of land as key biodiversity, landscape, recreation
or food production sites through the neighbourhood planning process. This will
enable key sites to be protected for wildlife, present or future allotments,
buffers to prevent separate communities being merged through ribbon development
etc.
17. Major
development to include a ‘planning
for real’ approach involving local stakeholders, including young and older
people. Developers should show how they have taken this participation into
account in their plans and provide adequate justification if participatory
derived ideas are not being included.
Notes:
[i] See TAN6 –
One Planet Policy
[ii] Many
brownfield sites have high biodiversity which can be maintained. They do
however suffer from planning uncertainty, leading to lack of investment in a
more permanent use and can be considered locally as an eyesore or create other
problems for the local community.
[iv] see attached LISS Eco Cluster Proposal
HS41 If it can be demonstrated that a significant environmental
benefit will result low impact housing may be permitted as an exception to the
prevailing policy of restricting residential development in the countryside.
In such circumstances a
Planning Obligation will be sought to ensure that the low impact nature of the
development will remain in perpetuity. The development will have to be removed
if it ceases to be low impact.
Low impact housing will
only be permitted if it is close to a village that has a range of social and
community facilities. These must include a school and food shop. Low impact
housing will not be acceptable in or adjacent to, designated landscapes and
protected or designated national and county wildlife sites.
[v] Code 6 homes must have offices - we want to see an
extra practical space that occupants can adapt to their need, with ground floor
access, power and water connected.
No comments:
Post a Comment