B&MSDC Supplementary Planning Documents Consultation
Search representations
Results for M Scott Properties Ltd search
New searchComment
B&MSDC Supplementary Planning Documents Consultation
Draft Biodiversity and Trees SPD Consultation Document - May 2024
Representation ID: 23569
Received: 18/06/2024
Respondent: M Scott Properties Ltd
M Scott Properties Ltd welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Biodiversity and Trees SPD Consultation Document – May 2024. Our comments are focused on the supplementary guidance in respect of Biodiversity Net Gain. The relevant paragraph numbers are referenced to help aid the Council in reviewing our comments and recommendations. We would welcome the opportunity to continue dialogue with the Council on this topic.
Para 2.8.3 – We fully support improving the speed which applications can be dealt with, although, from our experience, this particular challenge does not lie solely with the applicant. Ensuring that the correct information is provided as part of the planning application is, however, helpful. As the SPD is also seeking the submission of more detailed information, how does the Council envisage coping with the level and type of information that is being requested? The SPD may not be the correct mechanism for this information, but it is crucial to the successful implementation of the suite of BNG-related requirements.
Para 4.12 encourages, where possible, at least 20% BNG. We feel that the wording in this paragraph (and others) could be made clearer that this is an aspiration. Failing to go beyond the mandatory level towards the aspirational 20% BNG level shouldn’t be viewed negatively by the Council. There may be times when an applicant wishes to exceed the 10% mandatory requirement, but likewise, there will be times when this is not the case. It would be helpful if the SPD recognised this scenario so that it is clear that the SPD is not trying to increase the mandatory 10% requirement.
Para 4.22 – It is essential that all parties behave reasonably. Para 4.22 is written with a, presumably unintended bias against the applicant. The second bullet point, for example, cites that a delay in the granting of permission could result from an applicant refusing to engage in making changes to the application. Whilst we agree that simply refusing to engage is unacceptable, there will be times when an applicant can justify not meeting the Council’s aspirations beyond the mandatory level.
Para 4.25 – Whilst the priority for on-site provision of units is understood and supported, the closed locational hierarchy does not appear to accord with Government guidance on the matter. The PPG is clear that units can be provided anywhere in England. We agree that priority should be for local off-site units, as per the hierarchy in para 4.25, but to align with the PPG, we feel that it should be made clear that national credits are part of the locational hierarchy.
Para 4.27 – This is a new system, with unknown elements, and purchasing units local to a site will depend on whether any units are available and their cost. These are factors that we don’t yet know enough about and the SPD would be helpful if it recognised that there will be teething problems with the process in its infancy and kept as many options open to help applicants deliver BNG.
Para 4.28 – Weight is placed on the Local Nature Recovery Strategy in the locational hierarchy although it not yet available. It is expected to be published in 2025. Two of the four bullet points in the locational hierarchy rely on the implementation of the LNRS. It is understood that units from within a LNRS carry more weight through the additional unit value attributed to them, but the hierarchy as drafted excludes the provision of units delivered in other locations. Para 4.29 refers to site-by-site assessment during the interim period (whilst we wait for the LNRS to be published) however, the delivery of units in non-LNRS locations should not be excluded, as they appear to be at present.
Para 5.1.1 – The SPD uses the phrase “where possible” on several occasions. It would be helpful if the SPD could be clearer as what this means and how the applicant and Council will work together to explore the options available.
Para 5.3.1 – The timings of securing sites, gathering the information for applications and seasonal survey requirements do not always allow for the provision of the full survey results for protected species, at the submission stage. At present, there is a degree of pragmatism at the validation stage for specific surveys to be provided during the determination period which helps avoid delays.
Para 5.5.6 – This paragraph appears to contradict para 5.3.1 as it seeks to ensure that the necessary protected species survey results are known and appropriate mitigation presented before determination (i.e. not controlled by a planning condition), but does not make them a validation requirement. We would welcome the approach described in para 5.5.6 which is more appropriate and realistic and should be clarified as the acceptable way forward.
Appendix 8
It is clear from the level of information required for the Management and Monitoring Plans that the Council will have a limited role in the monitoring process, unless there is a failure to deliver and maintain the habitats in the condition expected. The SPD identifies the need for, but does not quantify the level of monitoring fee required.
M Scott Properties Ltd welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Biodiversity and Trees SPD Consultation Document – May 2024. Our comments are focused on the supplementary guidance in respect of Biodiversity Net Gain. The relevant paragraph numbers are referenced to help aid the Council in reviewing our comments and recommendations. We would welcome the opportunity to continue dialogue with the Council on this topic.
Para 2.8.3 – We fully support improving the speed which applications can be dealt with, although, from our experience, this particular challenge does not lie solely with the applicant. Ensuring that the correct information is provided as part of the planning application is, however, helpful. As the SPD is also seeking the submission of more detailed information, how does the Council envisage coping with the level and type of information that is being requested? The SPD may not be the correct mechanism for this information, but it is crucial to the successful implementation of the suite of BNG-related requirements.
Para 4.12 encourages, where possible, at least 20% BNG. We feel that the wording in this paragraph (and others) could be made clearer that this is an aspiration. Failing to go beyond the mandatory level towards the aspirational 20% BNG level shouldn’t be viewed negatively by the Council. There may be times when an applicant wishes to exceed the 10% mandatory requirement, but likewise, there will be times when this is not the case. It would be helpful if the SPD recognised this scenario so that it is clear that the SPD is not trying to increase the mandatory 10% requirement.
Para 4.22 – It is essential that all parties behave reasonably. Para 4.22 is written with a, presumably unintended bias against the applicant. The second bullet point, for example, cites that a delay in the granting of permission could result from an applicant refusing to engage in making changes to the application. Whilst we agree that simply refusing to engage is unacceptable, there will be times when an applicant can justify not meeting the Council’s aspirations beyond the mandatory level.
Para 4.25 – Whilst the priority for on-site provision of units is understood and supported, the closed locational hierarchy does not appear to accord with Government guidance on the matter. The PPG is clear that units can be provided anywhere in England. We agree that priority should be for local off-site units, as per the hierarchy in para 4.25, but to align with the PPG, we feel that it should be made clear that national credits are part of the locational hierarchy.
Para 4.27 – This is a new system, with unknown elements, and purchasing units local to a site will depend on whether any units are available and their cost. These are factors that we don’t yet know enough about and the SPD would be helpful if it recognised that there will be teething problems with the process in its infancy and kept as many options open to help applicants deliver BNG.
Para 4.28 – Weight is placed on the Local Nature Recovery Strategy in the locational hierarchy although it not yet available. It is expected to be published in 2025. Two of the four bullet points in the locational hierarchy rely on the implementation of the LNRS. It is understood that units from within a LNRS carry more weight through the additional unit value attributed to them, but the hierarchy as drafted excludes the provision of units delivered in other locations. Para 4.29 refers to site-by-site assessment during the interim period (whilst we wait for the LNRS to be published) however, the delivery of units in non-LNRS locations should not be excluded, as they appear to be at present.
Para 5.1.1 – The SPD uses the phrase “where possible” on several occasions. It would be helpful if the SPD could be clearer as what this means and how the applicant and Council will work together to explore the options available.
Para 5.3.1 – The timings of securing sites, gathering the information for applications and seasonal survey requirements do not always allow for the provision of the full survey results for protected species, at the submission stage. At present, there is a degree of pragmatism at the validation stage for specific surveys to be provided during the determination period which helps avoid delays.
Para 5.5.6 – This paragraph appears to contradict para 5.3.1 as it seeks to ensure that the necessary protected species survey results are known and appropriate mitigation presented before determination (i.e. not controlled by a planning condition), but does not make them a validation requirement. We would welcome the approach described in para 5.5.6 which is more appropriate and realistic and should be clarified as the acceptable way forward.
Appendix 8
It is clear from the level of information required for the Management and Monitoring Plans that the Council will have a limited role in the monitoring process, unless there is a failure to deliver and maintain the habitats in the condition expected. The SPD identifies the need for, but does not quantify the level of monitoring fee required.
Comment
B&MSDC Supplementary Planning Documents Consultation
Draft Housing SPD Consultation Document - May 2024
Representation ID: 23570
Received: 19/06/2024
Respondent: M Scott Properties Ltd
M Scott Properties Ltd welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Housing SPD Consultation Document – May 2024. Much of the SPD provides helpful clarity on how applicants are expected to deliver the main types of housing on-site and how commuted sums can be used in lieu. There are, however a few details which we feel need some attention as they could restrict the supply of new homes; in particular market and affordable homes.
The relevant paragraph numbers are referenced to help the Council review our comments and recommendations. We would welcome the opportunity to continue dialogue with the Council on this topic.
Para 2.1.13 feels unnecessarily restrictive. We understand the objective; to prevent the mislabelling of rooms, but there is no guarantee that these rooms will become bedrooms. It is acknowledged that in time the use of rooms could change, but there is no guarantee that this will happen – which is the approach being taken in the SPD. There are numerous reasons why homes may have study space or rooms in general that are more than the NDSS (which is a minimum standard, not a maximum). In addition, reception rooms beyond the listed “standard” living room, dining room, kitchens etc. should not automatically be assumed that they are going to be used as bedrooms. The internal design of new homes will always include the applicant’s or purchaser’s (in the case of self/custom-build) aspirations and these may include additional rooms which, for example, could be used as children’s play room / games room / home gym or home cinema room. Our view is that this “potential bedrooms” section of the SPD should be removed.
Para 2.2.24 (vii) – We are unclear as to why it is felt necessary for the SPD to try to limit storey heights to 3 storeys. Each site is different and some will be able to accommodate more than three storeys in height and still meet the criteria of good design. We would recommend that this sub-section of Para 2.2.24 is removed.
Para 2.2.25 – We welcome the reference to the importance of taking into account the management of the affordable housing units when considering the location of affordable dwellings in a layout. From our experience, however, the Registered Providers want larger clusters of affordable (all tenures) to help keep their management efficient – which in turn helps keep down the cost of the affordable homes.
Para 2.2.26 – Based on our own experience, our observations on the example layout in para 2.2.26 include the clusters of affordable housing being too small for the registered Provider. There are also areas where the blue market housing units appear isolated and surrounded on at least three sides by affordable housing. This harms the steady release of new homes to the market and could have a negative impact on the market prices achieved. There is the potential that this on-site relationship could negatively affect the viability of the scheme, which would be contrary to para 2.2.27. We recommend that either the example layout should be amended to provide a more balanced approach to pepper-potting the tenures, or additional wording added to recognise the importance of finding a balanced layout.
Para 5.1.4 seeks to restrict the size of the cluster of 1-bed apartments in a single building to a maximum of 6 units. Whilst this size of apartment building may well be suitable on some sites, there will be others, where larger apartment buildings are appropriate. It is unclear why the restriction is necessary with the SPD already looking to ensure tenure blind design and pepper potting of affordable tenures. The Council can control the amount and location of apartments through the planning application process (either Detailed or Reserved Matters). This paragraph appears to be seeking to influence design without taking on board the site circumstances and we feel it should be removed from the SPD.
Para 5.1.5 is looking to require showers only to be fitted in bungalows and ground-floor apartments. Our sister company Scott Residential specialises in bungalows for older persons, including the provision of affordable housing. The Registered Providers we work with have their preferences on whether or not to provide a shower, bath, or a combination of the two. On larger sites, they sometimes require a combination of the above, so that they have a varied property portfolio on the same site. As there is no explanation in the SPD (as to why this is felt necessary), we would recommend that this paragraph is removed and the specification of the affordable ground floor flats and bungalows are left to the Registered Providers.
Para 6.1.2 - The reliance on district-wide viability evidence has the potential to generate unrealistic commuted sums. For example, neither sites in areas which command lower sales values than the average nor sites burdened with abnormal costs will have been appropriately considered in the district-wide evidence. We recommend that the SPD be amended to include a mechanism for the applicant to be allowed to submit site-specific evidence to demonstrate an alternative commuted sum that ensures the delivery of the site.
Para 6.1.4 – We do not believe that the slight reduction of the affordable requirement (to 25%) provides a realistic solution to developing brownfield sites. As with our comments on para 6.1.2 above, we would advise that the Council should accept site-specific evidence to inform an alternative level of affordable housing and/or commuted sum.
Para 6.1.5 / 6.1.6 – It would be helpful for the reader if the SPD was clear in what scenarios the per unit or £psm could be used and who decides. We would recommend that the applicant choose which route they wish to take.
Para 6.1.8 - The proposed annual adjustments are too broad. The use of the Land Registry House Price Index for Suffolk covers a much wider area than Babergh and Mid-Suffolk and the results are influenced by larger urban areas, such as Ipswich. This results in a less accurate reflection of the house prices in the districts, which could render a scheme unviable (due to the sales price increase being greater than the locality of the site). The BCIS Tender Price Index is also a national index and does not accommodate local variations (positive or negative) in costs or employment availability. Ideally, the SPD allows for the use of site-specific appraisals, which reduces the impact of the annual adjustments, but if this is not taken on board by the Council, we recommend that the annual appraisal is updated with supporting, district-level evidence to justify any changes in the initial rates.
7. Planning Obligations Heads of Terms
The items listed in this section are details that, if relevant, are negotiated as part of the drafting of the S106 agreement, so it is helpful for the SPD to outline what is expected. However, some appear unnecessarily detailed for the stage of the process, i.e. when officers are recommending approval. This will inadvertently place an additional administrative burden on the already stretched planning officers. For example, sub-sections 7.1.1 (iv) affordable mechanisms, (v) mortgagee in possession, (vi) public subsidy compliance and (viii) affordable ownership, all appear to be detailed matters for later on in the S106 process and so are not needed for an officer to be able to make their recommendation. We would recommend that either these sub-sections are removed, or para 7.1.1 is reworded as follows:
“The Council will agree the following matters with applicants as part of the negotiations to secure a Section 106 agreement”
M Scott Properties Ltd welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Housing SPD Consultation Document – May 2024. Much of the SPD provides helpful clarity on how applicants are expected to deliver the main types of housing on-site and how commuted sums can be used in lieu. There are, however a few details which we feel need some attention as they could restrict the supply of new homes; in particular market and affordable homes.
The relevant paragraph numbers are referenced to help the Council review our comments and recommendations. We would welcome the opportunity to continue dialogue with the Council on this topic.
Para 2.1.13 feels unnecessarily restrictive. We understand the objective; to prevent the mislabelling of rooms, but there is no guarantee that these rooms will become bedrooms. It is acknowledged that in time the use of rooms could change, but there is no guarantee that this will happen – which is the approach being taken in the SPD. There are numerous reasons why homes may have study space or rooms in general that are more than the NDSS (which is a minimum standard, not a maximum). In addition, reception rooms beyond the listed “standard” living room, dining room, kitchens etc. should not automatically be assumed that they are going to be used as bedrooms. The internal design of new homes will always include the applicant’s or purchaser’s (in the case of self/custom-build) aspirations and these may include additional rooms which, for example, could be used as children’s play room / games room / home gym or home cinema room. Our view is that this “potential bedrooms” section of the SPD should be removed.
Para 2.2.24 (vii) – We are unclear as to why it is felt necessary for the SPD to try to limit storey heights to 3 storeys. Each site is different and some will be able to accommodate more than three storeys in height and still meet the criteria of good design. We would recommend that this sub-section of Para 2.2.24 is removed.
Para 2.2.25 – We welcome the reference to the importance of taking into account the management of the affordable housing units when considering the location of affordable dwellings in a layout. From our experience, however, the Registered Providers want larger clusters of affordable (all tenures) to help keep their management efficient – which in turn helps keep down the cost of the affordable homes.
Para 2.2.26 – Based on our own experience, our observations on the example layout in para 2.2.26 include the clusters of affordable housing being too small for the registered Provider. There are also areas where the blue market housing units appear isolated and surrounded on at least three sides by affordable housing. This harms the steady release of new homes to the market and could have a negative impact on the market prices achieved. There is the potential that this on-site relationship could negatively affect the viability of the scheme, which would be contrary to para 2.2.27. We recommend that either the example layout should be amended to provide a more balanced approach to pepper-potting the tenures, or additional wording added to recognise the importance of finding a balanced layout.
Para 5.1.4 seeks to restrict the size of the cluster of 1-bed apartments in a single building to a maximum of 6 units. Whilst this size of apartment building may well be suitable on some sites, there will be others, where larger apartment buildings are appropriate. It is unclear why the restriction is necessary with the SPD already looking to ensure tenure blind design and pepper potting of affordable tenures. The Council can control the amount and location of apartments through the planning application process (either Detailed or Reserved Matters). This paragraph appears to be seeking to influence design without taking on board the site circumstances and we feel it should be removed from the SPD.
Para 5.1.5 is looking to require showers only to be fitted in bungalows and ground-floor apartments. Our sister company Scott Residential specialises in bungalows for older persons, including the provision of affordable housing. The Registered Providers we work with have their preferences on whether or not to provide a shower, bath, or a combination of the two. On larger sites, they sometimes require a combination of the above, so that they have a varied property portfolio on the same site. As there is no explanation in the SPD (as to why this is felt necessary), we would recommend that this paragraph is removed and the specification of the affordable ground floor flats and bungalows are left to the Registered Providers.
Para 6.1.2 - The reliance on district-wide viability evidence has the potential to generate unrealistic commuted sums. For example, neither sites in areas which command lower sales values than the average nor sites burdened with abnormal costs will have been appropriately considered in the district-wide evidence. We recommend that the SPD be amended to include a mechanism for the applicant to be allowed to submit site-specific evidence to demonstrate an alternative commuted sum that ensures the delivery of the site.
Para 6.1.4 – We do not believe that the slight reduction of the affordable requirement (to 25%) provides a realistic solution to developing brownfield sites. As with our comments on para 6.1.2 above, we would advise that the Council should accept site-specific evidence to inform an alternative level of affordable housing and/or commuted sum.
Para 6.1.5 / 6.1.6 – It would be helpful for the reader if the SPD was clear in what scenarios the per unit or £psm could be used and who decides. We would recommend that the applicant choose which route they wish to take.
Para 6.1.8 - The proposed annual adjustments are too broad. The use of the Land Registry House Price Index for Suffolk covers a much wider area than Babergh and Mid-Suffolk and the results are influenced by larger urban areas, such as Ipswich. This results in a less accurate reflection of the house prices in the districts, which could render a scheme unviable (due to the sales price increase being greater than the locality of the site). The BCIS Tender Price Index is also a national index and does not accommodate local variations (positive or negative) in costs or employment availability. Ideally, the SPD allows for the use of site-specific appraisals, which reduces the impact of the annual adjustments, but if this is not taken on board by the Council, we recommend that the annual appraisal is updated with supporting, district-level evidence to justify any changes in the initial rates.
7. Planning Obligations Heads of Terms
The items listed in this section are details that, if relevant, are negotiated as part of the drafting of the S106 agreement, so it is helpful for the SPD to outline what is expected. However, some appear unnecessarily detailed for the stage of the process, i.e. when officers are recommending approval. This will inadvertently place an additional administrative burden on the already stretched planning officers. For example, sub-sections 7.1.1 (iv) affordable mechanisms, (v) mortgagee in possession, (vi) public subsidy compliance and (viii) affordable ownership, all appear to be detailed matters for later on in the S106 process and so are not needed for an officer to be able to make their recommendation. We would recommend that either these sub-sections are removed, or para 7.1.1 is reworded as follows:
“The Council will agree the following matters with applicants as part of the negotiations to secure a Section 106 agreement”
