Comment

Representation ID: 9958

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and L & Q Estates Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

The promoters continue to support the
premise of the policy and welcome the ‘by negotiation’ position on larger sites. However,
as raised in our Regulation 18 Consultation representations, the policy still does not
provide guidance on how these should be dealt with, when larger sites require the
submission of a Design Code. A clearer mechanism should be inserted into the policy
which outlines how this may be dealt with i.e. a self-build ‘passport’ scheme. There is
always a danger of gaps in the streetscene, or unfinished properties, by including selfbuild
plots into development proposals and this needs to be avoided to ensure cohesive
and consistent developments.
We would request further explanation of how specific percentages required by different
scales of development have been arrived at. For example, a requirement of 2no. self and
custom build plots on a 10-dwelling site equates to 20% provision, and a requirement of
7no. self and custom build plots on a 90-dwelling site equates to approximately 8%
provision. Typically, many local plans require roughly 5% provision or are negotiated on
a case-by-case basis according to evidence of need. This also represents an imbalance in
how much provision is sought based on the scale of a site, when there is no evidence to
support such an approach.