Design and Access Statement for a Housing Development at The ...

A s s e s s m e n t
d e s i g n a n d a c c e s s s t a t e m e n t
Local Plan Policies and Supplementary Policies
The list opposite lists relevant saved local plan policies with a summary of their requirements.
Most have generic policy expectations about design, accessibility, compatibility with
surroundings, the standard of amenity for future and existing residents, parking needs,
landscaping and wildlife impacts, and utility needs.
Of note, there is no policy protecting the continuation of the public house use. The absence of
site specific policies (eg. none of the site is designated as open space) and location within the
development boundary of the village means development is acceptable in principle. The
location within a residential area means that residential development will be acceptable in
principle.
E1
E2
E24
E27
E29
H4
H5
H6
H7
T7
T9
T11
RC14
GOOD DESIGN
ENERGY-EFFICIENT DESIGN AND LAYOUT
TREES, HEDGEROWS AND TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATED LAND
SUBDIVISION OR ADAPTATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DENSITY OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
LAND NOT ALLOCATED FOR HOUSING PURPOSES
CYCLING ROUTES AND FACILITIES
PEDESTRIAN ROUTES AND FACILITIES
GUIDANCE FOR PARKING PROVISION
FOOTPATHS, BRIDLEWAYS AND CYCLE ROUTES
E24 requires trees and hedgerows to be protected or replaced: these features are on the site but
none are protected or of significant quality.
In regard of parking standards, the County Council adopted interim new residential
standards in January 2010. This sets a maximum of 3 spaces for 4-bed+ houses and 2
spaces for smaller houses.
Policy E29 relates to potential contamination issues. Contamination is not suspected per se on
this site, but there is a capped mine shaft with a protection zone that needs to be avoided by
buildings.
An important factor will be ensuring the direct line of sight currently enjoyed along the
public footpath is retained, for safety and security reasons. This will preclude planting or
boundary features that would block the line of sight.
The expected minimum density of 35 dph for a site in this kind of location is likely to be difficult
to achieve because of the odd site shape, retention of the pub, and public footpath cutting
across the site.
The proposal will fall below the minimum thresholds for published planning contribution
requirements, so a requirement for a S.106 Agreement is not expected.
H o u s i n g , W a g g o n & H o r s e s , B r i n s l e y
5