Object

Development Management DPD Preferred Policy Options Document

Representation ID: 28287

Received: 08/02/2012

Respondent: Barratt Eastern Counties

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Representation Summary:

Strict minimum floorspace areas would be too rigid and would not enable best use to be made of sites. Their could be viability reasons for imposing such standards. There is no national policy basis for such standards and the rigidity of the policy would mean acceptable schemes might fail.

Full text:

We have severe reservations about the necessity of the policy and, if it were retained, the absolute nature of the policy requirement to maintain minimum internal floorspace requirements. The housing market has successfully brought forward good quality housing without these standards and there is no evidence that the housing stock is sub standard or that there is no demand for the housing that has been built to date. On this basis, we do not agree that this policy is necessary. The standardisation of house sizes would not be an appropriate way in which to guide development.

The policy wording would result in an inflexible policy and a policy which could prevent good quality smaller homes from being built. The wording of the policy may render a scheme unacceptable where minor undershooting of the standards occurs. The minimum floor to ceiling heights are also too absolute at 2.5m (see paragraph 2.31). Where schemes are proposed which marginally undershoot this standard, planning permission would be refused despite the scheme providing good quality accommodation.

Such absolute standards are also likely to have an effect on the densiy of schemes as greater land is required to meet these internal floor area standards. There is no evidence to suggest that smaller dwellings are unacceptable as living areas and these standards are based on non Rochford specific averages from English Partnership developments and research by CLG. No case has been made to apply this to the Rochford scenario and neither are we aware of any other District applying such rigid policy frameworks.

There is a danger that the viability of redeveloping brownfield sites is adversely affected where lower densities are insisted upon just to secure particular internal space standards. or, if it is to be retained, that it is sufficiently flexible.