Document Print/Save as PDF

Southampton City Vision Local Plan Chapter 4 - Infrastructure

City Centre Approach

City Centre Approach Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: City Centre Approach
Policy Number: IN1(S)
Options Y/N: Y

City Centre Approach Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – The Overall Scale of Development Growth
Option 1a – High-quality growth (Maximum development) – This would do the most to maximise the benefits of focussing development in the city centre. To make the best use of city centre space in development terms, this would mean promoting more taller buildings, minimising additional car parking provision, and creating high quality city parks rather than larger areas of open space. 10 13
Option 1b – High-quality growth (Less development) – This would still achieve benefits from focussing development in the city centre, although to a lesser extent than option 1A. However, it would enable some larger areas of open space to be created. It would also enable more car parking to be provided which will benefit car users (but would not encourage the use of alternative modes of travel). 12 10
Key Option 2 – The Mix of Growth
Option 2a – Residential-led mixed-use development – This would do the most to help meet the high levels of housing need in the city and South Hampshire, and would increase the number of people living in the city centre able to support the shops, leisure and other facilities and create more 4 HCC Small Area Population Forecast 2020 5 BRES 2020 (Number of employees) 77 ‘vibrancy’. Additional retail, leisure and office development to serve the wider area would still be planned for, using more cautious forecasts of what is needed. This minimises the risk that land is left unused but risks losing the opportunity to attract wider economic investment to the city. 17 5
Option 2b – Mixed residential / retail / leisure / office development – This would encourage wider economic investment in the city, using more optimistic forecasts of retail / leisure / office need. This could support more jobs and would enable a greater mix of activities, which would also create more ‘vibrancy’. It would mean that fewer housing needs were met in the city centre, placing more pressure on other sites, and risk leaving some land unused if there was no demand for the additional retail / leisure / office development. 7 15

Summary of responses (50 received)

n general, the respondents had a mixed view over the future direction of the City Centre growth strategy. A number of respondents considered that there should be more growth of leisure and cultural uses, and greater support for retail growth and creative enterprises. This includes supporting independent businesses to move closer to the centre of the shopping area where they currently operate on the periphery, and create a better tenant mix strategy to repurpose empty buildings. It was recognised that the quantum of new shopping floorspace should be informed by the updated retail study which was seen as essential in determining future retail needs in the context of this policy. There was a mixed view on supporting growth of the night time economy with respondents identifying economic benefits and social disbenefits. Others considered it imperative for major development sites to come forward in the short-term such as Royal Pier and associated improvements to Mayflower Park. A number of respondents were critical of the over-concentration of student housing in the City Centre.

Concerns were raised around how the growth strategy for higher densities with taller buildings and greater demand for parking can properly safeguard particular historic and environmental assets, including the Central Parks, from further overcrowding of buildings and people. In particular, it was suggested that the policy should make it clear that the Old Town is to kept separate and protected from the overall City Centre growth strategy.

Respondents considered that greater importance should be given to greening up new public realm and frontages and delivering green infrastructure in the City Centre. Furthermore, they questioned whether the aspiration of creating landmark buildings can be achieved based on ‘bland buildings’ being built in the City Centre. Others were concerned that there was limited provision for routine upkeep of the public art works, and suggest existing works require identification as to title, year and artist.

The University of Southampton expressed its concerns that the policy wording should give greater opportunities for taller buildings to be built outside the City Centre to facilitate its own campus growth strategy. Respondents considered that the growth strategy needed more focus on reducing traffic congestion in the City Centre and improving travel in and out for public transport and pedestrian/cyclists, including the creation of park and rides.

Respondents considered that the growth strategy should be better linked to mitigation of future environmental impacts including climate change and flood resilience in the City Centre. This included prioritising reuse of buildings to save embodied carbon, and the policy should include more reference to other flood defences from a variety of sources of flooding not just the RIFAS extent.

City Centre Primary Shopping Area Expansion

City Centre Primary Shopping Area Expansion Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: City Centre Primary Shopping Area Expansion
Policy Number: IN2(S)
Options Y/N: Y

City Centre Primary Shopping Area Expansion Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – Scale of Retail Growth
Option 1a – Lower Retail Growth – This will create more space for a wider mix of other uses in the city centre, including more restaurants / bars, business space and new homes close to public transport, and will avoid planning for major retail expansion which might undermine the existing shopping area. However, if we do not plan for the retail growth which is needed it will go to other centres, out of centre locations or ‘online’, which could itself undermine the success of the city centre. 6 2
Option 1b – Higher Retail Growth – This will enhance the city centre as a vibrant shopping area and locate shops close to public transport. However, if we plan for too much retail growth this could ‘squeeze out’ a wider mix of other activities which could itself undermine the vibrancy of the centre. Major retail expansion could also undermine the city centre’s existing shopping area. 1 7
Key Option 2 – Extent of the Existing Primary Shopping Area (PSA)
Option 2a – Define the ‘existing primary shopping area’ as at present – This would be based on the existing PSA and so would include the former Debenhams store and the site of the former East Street Shopping Centre. This larger area might mean that more retail growth could be focussed on this existing PSA first, including on these sites, rather than an expansion of the PSA into the Mayflower Quarter. This might help to support the existing East Street shopping street. However, the former Debenhams store and former East Street Shopping Centre site are some distance from the main shopping areas and it may be unlikely that they could attract modern retail developments. A significant part of the former East Street Shopping Centre and surrounding area has already been developed for non-retail uses. 1 7
Option 2b – Define the ‘existing primary shopping area’ as a smaller area than at present – This would reduce the size of the existing primary shopping area and exclude the former Debenhams store and East Street Shopping Centre sites. This smaller area might mean that less retail growth would be focussed on the existing PSA first and that more would be located in an expansion of the PSA in the Mayflower Quarter. However, the Mayflower Quarter, located between the Central Station and PSA in an area of growth, might be more successful at attracting retail investment and still be well connected to the wider city centre. A more flexible approach could be taken to redeveloping the former Debenhams store and East Street Shopping Centre site, to include a greater mix of uses at street level. This might be more likely to attract the investment required to enhance these areas of the city centre. 6 2
Option 2c – Are there other options for how the existing primary shopping area is defined? 3 3

Summary of responses (9 received)

There were a mix of responses to the policy proposals. Some responses supported the proposed approach to protecting the existing Primary Shopping Area and it continuing to be the focus for future retail growth to ensure its ongoing vitality. However, others suggested that retail uses should be more distributed across smaller centres as well and that the City Centre should be diversified to support a wider range of uses including those related to leisure and culture.

There were concerns raised about the age of the evidence base that assesses retail and leisure needs. Consequently, some responses suggested that an updated retail and leisure study should be prepared as soon as possible to inform any further iterations of this policy. Concerns were also raised about the potential impacts of expanding the Primary Shopping Area into Mayflower Quarter. Whilst there was recognition of the need to plan in a flexible manner for potential demand in the future, some responses considered there was insufficient evidence at this time to justify such an approach and re-emphasised the need to update the evidence base.

Some responses also used the opportunity to raise other concerns about the City Centre including issues of cleanliness, drunken disorder and begging, although these are outside the control of planning legislation. Others were concerned by potential longer opening hours with Old Town and Commercial Road being specifically identified as areas where 24 hour opening was not needed. There were also responses that expressed ideas for what uses should be provided in the City Centre in the future, with suggestions including an exhibition centre and ice rink.

City, Town, District & Local Centres

City, Town, District & Local Centres Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: City, Town, District & Local Centres
Policy Number: IN3(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Affordable Housing Policy Options Agree Disagree
Option 1 –  Local Centre destinations - as defined 2 5
Option 2 - Centre boundaries - as defined 5 2

Summary of responses (23 received)

There was general support for this policy in recognising the importance of centres and the role they play for local communities. Several responses suggested additional areas of the city that should be designated as a centre or made comments in relation to proposed boundary changes of existing centres. Some supported the use of a hierarchy to designate centres whilst others questioned the value of doing this or were concerned that this may lead to investment being prioritised in some centres over others. There were suggestions that a community led approach should be taken when determining where centres are designated and what facilities are included within them.

Some responses considered the proposed approach to edge of centre and out of centre development to be too permissive or open to exploitation by developers. However, others supported the approach and found it to be in line with national planning policy. The universities suggested an exception to allow some key ancillary uses to be located within or nearby to their major student accommodation campuses to ensure the day to day needs of the student population are met.

A number of responses raised points around design, mix of uses and transport. There were suggestions around increasing the use of design codes and guidance to improve the spaces in centres whilst others highlighted the importance of such spaces being accessible to all. Some considered that policy needed to restrict the proliferation of certain uses in centres such as off licences, late night takeaways and amusement arcades. There was a desire to see a wider range of facilities in centres including those related to sport, leisure and culture with some suggesting this would better support a 20 minute neighbourhood. It was also suggested that there should be a more responsive and flexible approach to change of use to allow for better curation of vacant and underutilised buildings. Some responses explained the difficulties experienced in using public transport to move between district centres without having to travel via the City Centre.

There was general support for utilising a 20 minute neighbourhood approach to improve the accessibility and range of facilities available to communities. However, some highlighted concerns about the use of different 20 minute neighbourhoods schemes elsewhere in the country and how these were being implemented and did not want to see that type of approach to implementation taken in Southampton.

 

Location of Uses Within Centres

Location of Uses Within Centres Policy Options

Theme:Infrastructure
Policy Name: Location of Uses Within Centres
Policy Number: IN4
Options Y/N: Y

Location of Uses Within Centres Policy Options Agree Disagree
Option 1a – Less Flexibility: the policy could allow only specific uses (i.e. as defined in Table 5 row 1). This would maintain a vibrant ‘shopping’ focus for these areas but may restrict the ability of these areas to evolve. For example, other uses (i.e. in row 2) would be prevented even if they could be designed to create a full active frontage. 10 13
Option 1b – More Flexibility: the policy could allow a wider range of specific uses in the city centre (i.e. in rows 1 and 2). This would provide greater flexibility for these areas to evolve, but risk allowing uses which contribute less vibrancy to these core areas (if they cannot be designed to achieve at least a significant level of active public frontage). 12 10

Summary of responses (9 received)

Responses to this policy focused on mix of uses and active frontages. Some responses highlighted the need to provide community facilities within centres such as schools, GP surgeries, community halls and places of worship. Others raised concerns that in some centres retail uses were being displaced by leisure uses leading to long rows on non-retail uses, most notably on Bedford Place. There was specific support given by statutory consultees to identifying education as a suitable use for centres. With regards to active frontages, business groups sought protections for these on primary shopping frontages. Statutory consultees sought some clarifications regarding the use of active frontages in education settings and in waterfront areas.

Food and Drink Uses

Food and Drink Uses Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Food and Drink Uses
Policy Number: IN5
Options Y/N: Y

Food and Drink Uses Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – Resisting the overconcentration of hot food takeaways in Town, District and Local Centres
Option 1a – resisting the overconcentration of hot food takeaways using the criteria proposed in Policy IN5. This will help address the issues associated with the overconcentration of hot food takeaways by restricting where new hot food takeaways could open but would reduce flexibility, particularly in designated centres, as to what available units could potentially be used for. 4 2
Option 1b – resisting the overconcentration of hot food takeaways using alternative criteria to that proposed in Policy IN5. This may allow for a more flexible approach and could ensure that centres with only a small number of units are not disproportionately affected by the application of this policy but using alternative spatial locations or criteria may not be as effective in managing the overconcentration of hot food takeaways. 2 3
Option 1c – to not introduce measures to resist overconcentration of hot food takeaways. This would be a continuation of the current approach which sees applications for hot food takeaways determined on a case-by-case basis, however it would not provide a defined policy mechanism for addressing the issues associated with large concentrations of hot food takeaways. 0 6
Key Option 2 – Resisting new hot food takeaways in close proximity to primary and secondary school
Option 2a – resist new hot food takeaways in close proximity to schools as per the approach proposed in Policy IN5. This would support the Council’s strategy for reducing childhood obesity rates but would necessitate additional restrictions on the location of new hot food takeaways that could reduce opportunities for new businesses to open and support the local economy. 4 1
Option 2b – rather than outright resist new hot food takeaways in close proximity to schools, require that any new hot food takeaway within the identified buffer zone has planning conditions limiting its 96 opening hours to outside of 15:00 to 17:00 when school children will be travelling home. This would limit young people’s access to takeaway food at a peak time for their potential use of hot food takeaways. However, they could still access takeaway food at these locations at other times and this may result in loitering or anti-social behaviour whilst waiting for hot food takeaways to open. 0 5
Option 2c – only seek to resist new hot food takeaways that are in close proximity to secondary schools rather than both primary and secondary schools. This provides a more targeted approach to controlling new hot food takeaways since secondary school students are more likely to have the means and opportunity to purchase takeaway food. However, this would mean that primary school students could still be exposed to hot food takeaways when travelling to and from schools which could contribute to future unhealthy eating habits. 1 5
Option 2d – to not have specific policy requirement to resist new hot food takeaways in close proximity to schools – this would reflect the current approach where applications for new hot food takeaways are considered on a case-by-case basis however this approach would not provide a definitive policy mechanism for reducing opportunities for young people to access takeaway food and the implications this has on health. 1 4

Summary of responses (4 received)

There was strong support for this policy with comments recognising the health and wellbeing impacts of unhealthy food that can be offered in some outlets. Comments supported Options 1a and 2a which sought to resist the overconcentration of takeaways and opening new takeaways in close proximity to schools both using the approach as drafted in the policy.

Night-Time and Late-Night Uses

Night-Time and Late-Night Uses Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Night-Time and Late-Night Uses
Policy Number: IN6
Options Y/N: Y

Night-Time and Late-Night Uses Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – Late-night hub opening hours
Option 1a – To continue limiting opening hours in late-night hubs to 3am (as per existing City Centre Action Plan) 7 5
Option 1b – To introduce a new opening hours restriction 0 10
Option 1c – To not limited opening hours in late night hub uses to a specific time, but to consider each proposal on its own merits and ability to address any potential negative impacts 6 5
Key Option 2 – Night-time Zone opening hours
Option 2a – To continue limiting opening hours in night-time zones to midnight 6 8
Option 2b – To introduce new opening hours restrictions which may include extending current closing times from midnight in some areas 8 5

Summary of responses (25 received)

There were a number of different opinions on this policy and a few main areas of disagreement with regards to the proposed approach. There were a number of comments that recognised the importance of night time uses to the economy and in making the city a more attractive place to live or visit. However, some comments were concerned that the late night leisure offer in the city was in decline compared to other major cities and that more needs to be done to support the city's independent venues. Some were concerned this decline would contribute to more under 30s leaving Southampton for other major cities.

A significant number of comments requested that Old Town was kept out of the late night hub, particularly those parts that have higher concentrations of residents. Some comments did recognise that late night uses might be acceptable in those parts of Old Town around the waterfront and retail areas where there are fewer residents but this would need to be considered alongside other development proposals such as the Mayflower Quarter and Town Quay regeneration projects. Some of those who commented preferred to retain the current approach to late night uses or did not feel that extended opening hours or intensification of late night uses should occur. Others highlighted that any policy on late night uses will need to be carefully applied to protect the amenity of residents but conversely some felt that too much weight was being given to the demands of residents in planning decisions on late night uses.

There were a number of comments, including from late night operators, that the proposed policy would be too restrictive and that a blanket ban on opening hours was not an appropriate response. A more flexible approach was preferred to a blanket ban where individual proposals could be considered on their own merit taking into account the amenity of any nearby residents. It was also suggested that the policy needs to be more aligned to the hours allowed in licensing permits given both the planning and licensing regulatory regimes share a common objective in protecting amenity. It was also suggested that more should be done to utilise vacant units in areas such as the High Street and Oxford Street to reinvigorate the night time economy in these locations, rather than focus a late night hub in a less connected, industrial-type area that has few late night venues since the closure of Leisure World. There were some who suggested the policy approach was somewhat dated and did not take account of the success of various independent venues across the city who operate in residential areas with few problems and could do with more support and could form their own mini late night hubs.

Some responses also highlighted a desire to diversify the offering in the night time economy by having more 24 hour supermarkets and other amenities. A point was also made about the need to provide more safe spaces and to increase awareness of these.

Community Facilities and Uses

Summary of responses (7 received)

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Community Facilities and Uses
Policy Number: IN7(S)
Options Y/N: N

There were mostly mixed responses to this policy. Some felt that it could be overly bureaucratic and controlling and perhaps needed to give greater flexibility to health venues for example. For example where these are no longer fit for purpose exploring whether they could they be used by the community. Others felt that stronger protection is needed for venues so there are no further losses, and a need to specify provision for youths.

Indoor and Outdoor Sports Facilities

Summary of responses (20 received)

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Indoor and Outdoor Sports Facilities
Policy Number: IN8(S)
Options Y/N: N

A substantial number of comments raised concerns that the policy did not adequately reflect challenges at the city's existing sports facilities which were considered to be ageing and no longer meet the needs of modern sport. Several comments suggested that a new indoor sports and leisure strategy is prepared to inform the approach of this policy. There were suggestions that new indoor sports facilities should be located in the City Centre to make them accessible to the widest range of users and that new swimming facilities were particularly needed in the city. There was also a recognition that in some cases it may be more appropriate to invest in a single large sports facility either within the city or in a neighbouring authority that could still serve Southampton as part of its catchment. In devising a new strategy and determining what new facilities should be provided several comments requested greater levels of consultation with the city's sports clubs and teams.

It was highlighted that the public transport accessibility of some sports facilities, such as the Outdoor Sport Centre, needs to be improved. It was considered that the design of Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) needs to ensure that all users feel safe when using them.

Primary, Secondary, Further Education & Early Years Provision

Primary, Secondary, Further Education & Early Years Provision Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Primary, Secondary, Further Education & Early Years Provision
Policy Number: IN9S
Options Y/N: Y

Option 3a – to propose a flexible approach to redeveloping schools and further education provision if it can be clearly demonstrated there is no longer a need and/or facilities including for community/sports use can be relocated to another accessible site where there are equivalent community benefits – this is the Councils preferred approach since it would allow for strategic planning decisions to be made for the purpose of meeting future school place needs across the city.

Primary, Secondary, Further Education & Early Years Provision Policy Options

 Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – School Places Provision
Option 1a – The Council will ensure that education facilities are delivered across the City through the provision of new schools along with the redevelopment, extension or reconfiguration of such facilities to meet increased demand for school (under 16) and further education (post 16) places - there are no alternative options for the Council in its local education authority role and its statutory responsibility for ensuring that core education and children’s services are delivered within the City. This is because this approach is given significant weight in the NPPF. 7 5
Key Option 2 – the use of Community Use Agreements (CUAs) to provide secured use of playing pitches and/or sports halls for communities
Option 2a – The Council to require community use agreements are entered into as part of a signed Section 106 agreement to provide secured use of use of indoor and outdoor facilities for communities following the granting of permission for new schools or for the redevelopment, reconfiguration or extension of school buildings and/or facilities- it is clear from the NPPF that community use agreements which would allow for wider public use of school facilities are not a specific requirement although it is stated in paragraph 124 that planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land. This option is therefore the Councils preferred approach due to the finite availability of facilities and resources whereby shared use can help to maximise the use of those existing throughout the city. This would also be in accordance with an approach which is advocated by Sport England when it comes to the shared use of playing pitches. 5 0
Option 2b – The Council to not require or seek that community use agreements are entered into as part of a signed Section 106 agreement to provide secured use of indoor and outdoor facilities for communities following the granting of permission for new schools or for the redevelopment, reconfiguration or extension of school buildings and/or facilities – whilst this option do not require or seek community use agreements to be entered into, this does not prevent these from coming forward should these be proposed as part of any submitted planning application. However, Option 2a is the Councils preferred approach. 0 5
Key Option 3 – Future safeguarding of schools and further education establishments
Option 3b – to maintain all school and further education provision in its safeguarded use regardless to the future supply and demand trends for school place needs across the city – this approach would prevent flexibility for allowing the Council to redevelop school sites where it is clearly demonstrated they would be surplus to requirements. This would then result in missed opportunities for the sustainable and optimised re-use of land for other uses. 1 4

Summary of responses (4 received)

There were no objections to this policy. It was suggested the policy could include more detail to enable the use of school venues for community activities beyond sport and for school buildings to have more energy and sustainability initiatives.

Universities

Universities Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Universities
Policy Number: IN10(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Universities Policy Options

 Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – University Campus sites
Option 1a – To support the provision of new university campus sites in highly accessible locations such as within the city centre – this is the Councils preferred approach due to the accessibility and sustainability benefits this would provide along with the redevelopment and regeneration opportunities this could bring to key city centre sites such as the Mayflower Quarter. 3 1
Option 1b – to support the provision of new university campus sites regardless to where they are proposed in the city – this approach would provide greater flexibility as to where new campus sites could be developed across the city but with a risk of less sustainable and accessible sites being identified. 1 3
Key Option 2 - Academic related uses and alternative uses linked to academic provision
Option 2a – to support the approach to give wider flexibility to future uses where it can be demonstrated that other uses within the university campuses would not prejudice the future provision and prioritisation of academic related needs – this option provides greater flexibility and is the Councils preferred approach with the provision of non-academic uses due to the benefits this could bring for unlocking the potential for future academic related provision on the university campus sites, so long as these benefits are clearly demonstrated. 3 0
Option 2b – to only support the provision and prioritisation of academic related uses within the university campus sites – this option is less preferrable since would be less likely to unlock the full redevelopment potential of the university campus sites. 0 5
Key Option 3 – East Park Terrace campus expansion
Option 3a – to support the proposed policy approach to maintain flexibility in planning for future uses on the vacant site adjacent to Charlotte Place Roundabout within the Southampton Solent University East Park Terrace Campus – this is the Councils preferred approach since this would help to counteract the current uncertainty in the market for identifying a more specific range of uses at this stage. This approach would also prevent the possibility of the site remaining vacant over a longer-term period if specific uses were identified and were not forthcoming through submitted development proposals. 4 0
Option 3b – to identify specific uses which should be developed on the vacant site adjacent to Charlotte Place Roundabout within the Southampton Solent University East Park Terrace Campus – this approach would come with a risk the site remaining vacant if any specific uses were to be unattractive or unviable to the market at any given time over the period of the Plan. 1 4
Key Option 4 – University of Southampton Campus Sites
Option 4a – to support the proposed flexible policy approach for the intensification of the existing built development within the University of Southampton campus sites with the Highfield Road Campus being the main focal point for redevelopment and investment opportunities – this is the Councils preferred approach since this would help to counteract the current uncertainty in the market for identifying a more specific range of uses at this stage. This approach would also prevent the possibility of the site remaining vacant over a longer-term period if specific uses were identified and were not forthcoming through submitted development proposals. 4 0
Option 4b – to identify specific uses which should be developed within the University of Southampton campus sites with the Highfield Road Campus being the main focal point for redevelopment and investment opportunities – this approach would come with a risk the site remaining vacant if any specific uses were to be unattractive or unviable to the market at any given time over the period of the Plan. 0 4

Summary of responses (4 received)

With regards to the options all respondents agreed that there should be a flexible approach to development. Whilst some agree with intensification in the City Centre and other most accessible sites, others feel this approach should be taken with all campuses across the city, particularly given that the Highfield is outside of the City Centre.

There was general agreement with themes in the policy and the safeguarding of spaces for academic uses. Support for a flexible approach which tis with the evolving nature of campuses. Support for intensification at East Park Terrace, but this should be extended to all campuses across the city.

There were objections to the linking of academic floorspace and bedspaces. Changing ways of learning mean this needs to be assessed using appropriate evidence at the time.

There were mixed views on wider community use, with some feeling that students and staff should come first and this should only be for specific projects but others were more open to accommodating community.

There was general agreement in the overall approach recognising the important role the universities play in adding value to the city, its reputation and investment potential. Some feel there could be better integration, through enabling community use of university facilities. Universities are continuing to grow and this need should be met with PBSA. Some aspects felt too prescriptive with lack of evidence. Comments on parking are mixed with recognition that consolidation is needed to make better use of space, but ultimately the Universities feel they should be determining this through their own travel plans.

Health & Wellbeing

Health & Wellbeing Policy Options

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Health & Wellbeing
Policy Number: IN11(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Health & Wellbeing Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – Thresholds for defining substantial new development that is required to submit a HIA as part of a planning application
Option 1a – defining the threshold as 50 dwellings or more for residential development, and at 5,000m2 or more for non-residential development. This will allow the health impacts of developments of this scale and greater to be robustly considered but will capture a greater number of developments requiring more Council resources to assess submitted HIAs. 7 0
Option 1b – defining the threshold as 100 dwellings or more for residential development, and at 10,000m2 more for non-residential development. This will ensure the health impacts of the largest development proposals in the city are considered but would miss out those developments that are still of a significant scale and could have impacts on the health and wellbeing of future occupiers and existing neighbours. 1 5

Summary of responses (12 received)

There was strong support for this policy and its recognition of linkages to other policy areas such as the natural environment. The introduction of Health Impact Assessment (HIAs) wassupported with comments indicating a significant preference for Option 1a, which would introduce a requirement requirement for HIAs to be prepared for residential developments where 50 or more dwellings are proposed and for non-residential developments of 5,000 sqm or more. However, comments were received from various parts of the NHS suggesting that a HIA lower threshold for residential development of 20 or more dwellings should be introduced since this would beter capture the health impacts of incremental population growth. Comments from those who would potentially be required to submit HIAs as part of planning applications asked for supplementary guidance to be prepared and consideration be made as to whether an HIA requirement should be focused on those parts of the city with greater health issues.

Comments from the NHS suggested more flexibility is needed in certain parts of the policy. This included having a wider scope of what public facilities health facilities could be co- located with and what related uses will be allowed on hospital sites. There was also a desire for more flexibility on the future uses of existing healthcare sites that were to be replaced with alternative provision elsewhere, particularly when this is part of a comprehensive estate reorganisation. The NHS welcomed the use of developer contributions in providing new facilities to meet the healthcare needs of a growing population.

Some comments raised concerns around the health impacts of other parts of the City Vision, particularly with regard to the density and location of new housing and suggested that new housing should be provided with access to greenspace and pollution mitigation. There was support for using a health and wellbeing approach to support local food growing although it was suggested policy could do more to support urban farming.

Electronic Communications

Summary of responses (4 received)

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Electronic Communications
Policy Number: IN12(S)
Options Y/N: N

There were mainly mixed responses to this policy. There was an identified need to upgrade the infrastructure and have the flexibility to respond to new technologies. There was a suggestion that all new developments should have fibre-optic pre-installed. Some wondered whether more can more be done to support digitally excluded communities and residents. The physical infrastructure of masts and street cabinets needs consideration, particularly in residential areas.

Infrastructure Delivery

Summary of responses (12 received)

Theme: Infrastructure
Policy Name: Infrastructure Delivery
Policy Number: IN13
Options Y/N: N

There were no objections to this policy, with respondents either in agreement or making mixed responses. Many referred to the S106 agreement process, the need for greater transparency, early engagement with developers, and involving the voluntary and community sector. A range of different infrastructure types were mentioned including rail, water, community and health. One respondent felt that there should be a limit to proportionate contributions on all sites, with perhaps a more strategic approach, others also felt a plan of what is needed where would help.