Southampton City Vision Local Plan Chapter 7 - Development Principles

Placemaking and Quality of Development Policy Options

Theme: Development Principle
Policy Name: Placemaking and Quality of Development
Policy Number: DE1(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (43 received)

In general, respondents were supportive of the policy approach, however, comments were received mainly around themes of putting the protection of trees and wider environment at the heart of development and design, securing safe and inclusive public routes including the waterfront for pedestrians and cyclists without discriminating persons with mobility and sensory difficulties, protection of heritage assets from tall buildings and higher density development, promoting high quality and innovative design and use of materials for new development, enhancing open space, and designing out crime with greater consideration for preventing violence against women and girls.

Respondents were generally supportive of Option 1a, whilst a few supported greater flexibility to assess tree loss and replacement on a case by case basis under Option 1b. It was suggested that a tree protection policy should stipulate longer periods for responsibility to maintain replacement trees, species of replacement trees should be carefully chosen to be native, have greater biodiversity benefits, and be direct replacements for those lost. A number of respondents considered the policy should go further to avoid any mature tree loss, and wherever possible introduce trees to achieve a net increase in tree canopy cover.

The impact on bird populations was also highlighted from loss of shrubbery corridors cleared to reduce risk of crime and more habitat loss mitigation in new landscaping.

Summary of responses (9 received)

Theme: Development Principle
Policy Name: City Centre Streets and Spaces
Policy Number: DE2(S)
Options Y/N: N

There was general support for this policy with people keen to see greater emphasis on cycling and walking and reducing car use, particularly in the City Centre where car free areas can be created. Some felt this policy should also link to waterfront and facilitate the introduction of water buses and taxis.

Tall Buildings Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Tall Buildings
Policy Number: DE3(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (34 received)

There were mixed opinions on this policy with some responses supporting a greater use of tall buildings and others raising various concerns. For those who supported tall buildings they considered that densification through the use of tall buildings would help address issues such as housing needs, affordability and reducing car travel. The use of architecture in tall buildings was thought to be a good way to make the city more distinctive. This formed part of a wider recurring comment that high quality design is important for tall buildings and will usually determine the success of a development. Consequently, some considered that greater clarity was needed as to what constitutes good design in a tall building.

Notably, some thought the policy was too conservative and did not go far enough in supporting the provision of more tall buildings. Other suggested it would be better to use a merit-based approach to allow tall buildings to come forward anywhere in the city where they would be appropriate for their surroundings.

There were however a number of concerns raised about the use of tall buildings with several responses suggesting that recent tall building developments in the city had not been of sufficiently high quality. Some were concerned that more tall buildings would be oppressive and ruin the airy feel of the city that comes from it having fewer tall buildings than other major cities. There were also concerns raised about allowing taller buildings within the 400m buffers of transport corridors. Some felt that tall buildings in these areas would not be in keeping with surrounding low-rise buildings. It was suggested that where transport corridors ran through areas of open space the buffer should be removed. Others suggested that having a buffer was too permissible an approach and instead specific sites should be identified within the buffers that would be appropriate for tall buildings.

Several responses were concerned by the use of tall buildings around the edges of the Central Parks as it was thought tall buildings in these locations would hem in the parks and have a poor visual impact. Whilst those who raised this issue ideally did not want to see any further tall buildings around the edges of the parks, it was suggested that at the very least rows of tall buildings should not be allowed.

Whilst most developers supported tall buildings they did suggest that more detail and timetables were needed regarding potential masterplanning work in the City Centre that would determine where taller buildings would be located. Developers also raised concerns about the approach taken with regards to viewing platforms, suggesting such platforms should be created through a design-led approach and take account of the commercial operation of the building rather than be implemented through a blanket requirement.

Certain areas of the city were suggested by developers as being appropriate for tall buildings including Ocean Village and Highfield Campus.

Historic England also raised some concerns and suggested the need for a more balanced approach to the positive and negative aspects of tall buildings and improving linkages with existing evidence documents such as the Tall Buildings Study and Conservation Area Appraisals. They also encouraged policy require the use of visualisations to help in the determination of planning applications for tall buildings. Responses from neighbouring authorities reiterated that tall buildings near the city boundaries would need to take account of neighbouring areas.

Summary of responses (15 received)

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Waterfront
Policy Number: DE4(S)
Options Y/N: N

There was general support for the objectives of this policy and the need to have greater and more connected access to the waterfront. Some felt the Council needs to be stronger with developers, securing public access ahead of development and enforcing agreements, whilst others recognise the issues that have arisen in some parts of the city around land ownership and maintenance of paths. There is some support for the relocation of the Red Funnel Ferry terminal, but it was considered this must remain in a central location as it is a vital link to the Isle of Wight. There were overall strong feelings that improvements are needed to Mayflower Park and Town Quay Pier to provide amenity/leisure space. There was support for greening and discouraging car use. There was also a comment regarding the existing paths, noting the policy does not include anything on their maintenance or improvement.

This is not something that is covered by a Local Plan but will be shared with relevant colleagues in the council.

Summary of responses (6 received)

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Accessible and Inclusive Design
Policy Number: DE5
Options Y/N: N

There were no objections to this policy, with general agreement that the city should be accessible and welcoming to all people. This may require a range of different solutions to meet different needs of different people.

Housing Standards Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Housing Standards
Policy Number: DE6
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (17 received)

There was general support for improving the quality of homes and doing so by introducing a minimum space standard. Some comments from members of the public sought to encourage delivery of homes above the minimum standard whilst other cautioned against requiring too high a set of standards that might otherwise lead to a reduction in the overall number of new houses being delivered. Developers sought further evidence to justify the introduction of minimum space standards and to understand the impact this would have on viability.

There was also support for introducing accessibility standards with some comments highlighting how this would help people live in their own home for longer as their health and care needs change over time. Several comments considered that all new dwellings should be accessible whilst others considered having a proportion of accessible dwellings to be more pragmatic to ensure the overall delivery of more housing is not impacted. Nevertheless, a majority supported Option 2a of having a proportion of new dwellings to be accessible.

Developers highlighted that M4(2) standards for accessible and adaptable dwellings may become mandatory in Building Regulations within the next few years making it superfluous

to include this in the policy. Developers also sought greater clarity and flexibility around the different M4(3) standards for wheelchair and accessible dwelling. The proposed use of viability testing to help determine the proportions of accessible homes was welcomed by developers.

Energy and Net Zero Carbon Buildings Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Energy and Net Zero Carbon Buildings
Policy Number: DE7
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (38 received)

In general, the policy approach has been welcomed, however, many respondents have differing views on the level and type of energy standards which should be applied to achieve net zero, including those who consider that energy standards should not be set by the City Vision and the policy should not go beyond or duplicate Building Regulations and Future Homes Standards as this would not allow the market to work in the favour of developers by creating economies of scale. Furthermore, concerns were raised that the standards would risk making development financially unviable or be a constraint in construction techniques where standards are being pushed towards passivhaus, whilst the standards should only be applied ‘where possible’.

Others considered that the policy allows developers too much flexibility which will result in buildings having to be retrofitted, or fitted in the meanwhile with low carbon technologies such as green hydrogen and biomass boilers which have less benefits than technology such as heat pumps to reach net zero. Furthermore, it was questioned why the same standards are not applied to ‘other buildings’ such as office to residential conversions, whilst the renewable energy part of the policy should have a better interface with policy EN1 to take into account the impact on heritage assets. It was suggested that all available facades and pitched roofs on new buildings should be covered to maximise solar renewable energy, whilst solar heating is missing from the policy considerations. It was suggested to improve compatibility between on-plot low carbon energy measures and district heating with sleeving for carbon accounting through Southampton's existing district energy network, and by using low temperature energy systems.

A number of respondents were concerned that the policy wording was vague and open to interpretation to know exactly what the policy requires, especially where the policy uses terms such ‘aspirational’ and ‘maximise’. Others sought more detailed guidance on calculations such as offsetting, and that unregulated emissions should not be considered by the policy given their difficulty to control.

Differences in opinion were raised over the approach to valuing the net zero impact of embodied carbon in re-using existing buildings. Many considered that there should be

presumption to prioritise retrofitting and repurposing existing buildings. Others supported a more pragmatic approach to assess whether there would be greater net zero benefits by replacing an existing building with a more efficient one, whilst organisations such as the University of Southampton were concerned an inflexible approach to demolition would undermine the programme to redevelop their estate. There was uncertainty over how the carbon life cycle assessment would work in practice and be monitored given the limited details set out in the policy. Others pointed out added benefits of tackling fuel poverty by reducing the carbon footprint of buildings.

Sustainable Design of New Development Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Sustainable Design of New Development
Policy Number: DE8
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (11 received)

There are mixed views whether the policy approach will proportionately address the carbon emissions impact of development.

Respondents from the development industry considered that a more flexible approach should be applied to support design evolution, with the option to use alternative accreditation bodies, and the policy should set lower standards to ensure that the costs of

development remain feasible with no requirements to meet BREEAM or passivhaus certifications. Others raised the issue that some of the standards set out in the policy are mandatory by Building Regulations so should not be included in the City Vision. Additionally, evidence for the passivhaus target set for large scale residential development has not been justified.

In taking an alternative view, most other respondents were concerned that the policy approach would lead to a greater need to retrofit buildings built at a lower standard and, therefore, suggested a more ambitious approach to set higher standards for all developments to achieve passivhaus, and the passivhaus standard should be achieved by a greater proportion of homes within a largescale residential development including affordable homes. Additionally, a standard near passivhaus should be applied to retrofitting existing homes.

Waste and the Circular Economy Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Waste and the Circular Economy
Policy Number: DE9
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (3 received)

In general, the policy approach was supported. It was suggested that the policy ‘must’ require developers to first consider whether re-using existing buildings is possible to avoid demolition and rebuild in order to minimise waste generated and reduce carbon emissions.

Shopfronts, Signage and Advertisements Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Shopfronts, Signage and Advertisements
Policy Number: DE10
Options Y/N: Y

>

Summary of responses (1 received)

There was support indicated for the proposed approach to the design of shopfronts with comments expressing support for Option 1a to utilise the approach as drafted in policy

Parking Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Parking
Policy Number: DE11
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (19 received)

Many of the responses wanted to see a different approach to parking than may have taken place in recent decades. There was general consensus that parking levels in new developments should be reduced, if not made entirely parking free, in areas with good accessibility to services and public transport such as the City Centre and near train stations. Consequently, it was suggested in several responses that any parking standards in the City Vision should be maximum standards and seek to reduce the demand for car travel. There were suggestions that levels of parking in the city should be analysed to see where demand could be reduced and spaces freed up for other uses such as parklets.

Responses from most developers supported the flexibility of including the parking standards in an SPD although some preferred them to be included within the City Vision as they would be easier to look up alongside other standards in a single place such as an appendix.

There was support for including cycle parking standards and for recognising the need to provide parking for different types of cycles. However, it was suggested that cycle parking should also take better account of the physical abilities of the cyclist as well, by providing more accessible spaces for those who struggle with cycle parking racks.

There were suggestions that references in the policy and supporting text to issues around inadequate levels of parking should reflect that this is often a consequence of poor urban design and should be addressed as such to tackle issues such as parking on pavements.

Several responses raised the issue of a lack of park and ride facilities in the city and that this should be addressed within this policy.

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Policy Options

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Policy Number: DE12
Options Y/N: Y

Summary of responses (11 received)

The consultation responses were generally supportive of the policy approach, with the exception that a respondent considered the City Vision should not duplicate Building Regulations Part S which already requires EV charging to be provided by development, and EV should only be encouraged as an interim solution while shifting to car journeys to public transport and active travel. Others considered that the policy approach should be less flexible for developers to take into account development viability. In addition, it was suggested the policy should make provision for the EV charging infrastructure demand for cyclists including e-cargo bikes, kerbside parking, and parking courts outside Council tower blocks. Others felt that parking infrastructure for other kinds of vehicles should be provided such as hydrogen powered vehicles.

Summary of responses (1 received)

Theme: Development Principles
Policy Name: Southampton International Airport
Policy Number: DE13
Options Y/N: N

There was feeling that this policy is a little one sided in protecting the airport and should consider impacts of the airport on surrounding proposed development.