Planning – Application Comments

Comment Date: Mon 04 Mar 2024

Plymstock Quarry (aka Saltram Meadows), The Ride, Plymstock, Plymouth

23/01404/REM

Additional Housing Delivery Team (HDT) Consultee Comments

Further to negotiations and amended submissions regarding the Affordable and Accessible Housing delivery in this phase of Saltram Meadows ' the Housing Delivery team is now content that the Housing Mix better reflects the DOV and demonstrates capability to provide the Accessible Housing required.

The amended Affordable Housing mix has been revised to include a proportion of 1 bed flats and 2 additional 4 bed rented houses - set out in plan:

P23 ' 0576 ' DE ' 003 ' 01 Rev K and detailed below:

Dwelling Size Originally submitted
REM AH mix Amended submission Rev K
Rent Int Rent Int
1 bed flats 0 0 3 0
2 bed flats 0 0 0 0
2 bed houses 13 15 11 16
3 bed houses 5 2 2 1
4 bed houses 2 2 4 2
Total 39 39

Nb ' It would be a good idea to update the Planning/Affordable Housing statement and any other docs to reflect this amendment.

Regarding the outdoor amenity space for the 1 bed units ' please note that some privacy provision/screening will be required for the ground floor unit.

P23 ' 0576 ' DE ' 001 ' 14 Rev J is helpful in that it identifies the locations of the M4 (2) Accessible units for this phase and indicates for example provision to widen parking spaces. Clarification is still required regarding the gradient of approach ' and we understand that engineers to working on this detail, given site levels.

Implementation of the accessible detailing will be key when delivering the accessible units during construction ' hence it would be helpful to have this element of detail noted on the plan to assist construction staff during build out.

In conclusion ' several matters of concern have been dealt with through negotiation and amendment and the Housing Delivery Team are content that any additional matters could be controlled by condition if necessary.

Comments provided by Amy Luxton ' Housing Delivery Officer

Comment Date: Thu 29 Feb 2024

Saltram EDG23.001-FRSR-072.pdf

Comment Date: Wed 28 Feb 2024

Plymouth City Council
Strategic Planning & Infrastructure

Transport Planning Team
Ext: 01752 307813
Date: 28th February 2024
Marie Stainwright
Development Management
Strategic Planning & Infrastructure
Floor 2
Ballard House

Dear Marie

Highway Authority Consultation Response to a Planning Application


APPLICATION NO: 23/01404/REM

SITE: PLYMSTOCK QUARRY, THE RIDE, PLYMSTOCK, PLYMOUTH

DEVELOPMENT: Reserved Matters application further to outline consent 07/01094/OUT for residential development of 223 dwellings (including 39 affordable homes) and associated landscaping and infrastructure


Observations:

I have now reviewed the revised plans and documents and would wish to say that a number of improvements have been made, particularly in relation to the design/layout of the shared surface streets within the centre of the site. From a layout perspective I would wish to make the following comments:

' It is assumed that the dark green areas located between the buildings and the echelon car parking spaces are areas of landscaping? Where smaller areas are proposed, I would suggest that consideration is given to hard paving these areas in order to prevent them coming a maintenance liability for homeowners.

' With the removal of the footpaths (which I may add is fully supported by the LHA), a suitable location will need to be determined for the location/running of underground services within the shared surface streets being offered for adoption.

' I would suggest that the car parking spaces serving Plot 18 are turned through 45 degrees so that they are end-on (there is no need for these spaces to be echelon). The same comment also applies to the spaces serving Plots 149-151 and Plots 136-138.

' Some small additional areas of highway adoption will need to be introduced within the shared surface streets in order to create spaces within which adoptable street lighting columns can be located.

' There would appear to be a random bollard located within the footway/cycleway opposite Plot 60? Is it the intention that this route would be for pedestrians as well as cyclists?

' Whilst I appreciate it is outside the red line boundary for this application, I would wish to maintain the view that a combined footway/cycleway should be provided in the verge on the southern side of main street.

' I would still like to see some additional traffic calming measures along the Local Street. Could a raised table not be introduced outside Plots 193/194?

' It would be helpful if a plan could be produced in due course highlighting those areas which will be offered for adoption.

' Pedestrian routes need to be extended into the shared surface streets rather than dropping-off pedestrians immediately at the junctions (which leads to potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles entering and exiting these streets).

' Consideration needs to be given in respect of how the surface water drainage will work in the shared surface streets with there being no full height kerb face to channel water along.

' Consideration should be given to the introduction of a calming feature outside Plot 184 to highlight to motorists that they are leaving Main Street and entering an area where traffic speeds are expected to be lower. The same comment also applies outside Plots 1 and 223.

' There are some larger areas of assumed planting (dark green) for example the area adjacent to Plots 213- 215. Who will be responsible for the maintenance of these areas? It should be noted that any trees/landscaping located within the extent of areas to be adopted will require a commuted sum.

' Whilst not to be adopted, there should be a link from the private drive serving Plots 216-219 onto the combined footway/cycleway which runs around the northern boundary of the site.

Car Parking
The level of car parking has now been clarified, with a total of 439 spaces provided to serve 223 units. This equates to a car parking standard of around 2 spaces per unit which is considered to be acceptable in view of the majority of the units having 2 or more bedrooms. In acknowledging some of the car parking issues which have arisen on earlier phases, a total of 18 visitor spaces have been included within the overall car parking numbers.

It is not clear how the level of car parking proposed to serve Phases 7 and 8 accords with the site-wide Car Parking Strategy (which is a requirement of a specific condition attached to the outline consent). At the very minimum, I would expect to see the submission of the site-wide Car Parking Strategy as part of this application.

It is noted that internal minimum garage dimensions of 3m in width x 6m in length will be provided. Whilst it is accepted that garages of such dimensions are an improvement on the size of those garages provided on earlier phases of the development, this is still below the required standards of 3.5m in width x 6.5m in length as outlined within the JLP SPD. I would add that reference has been made to cycle parking being provided within the garages for those dwellings that benefit from such. On this basis, it is essential that the dimensions for garages as outlined in the JLP SPD are adhered to.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Regards


Scott Smy
Transport Development Coordinator

Officer authorised to sign on behalf of the Service
Director for Strategic Planning & Infrastructure

Comment Date: Thu 18 Jan 2024

2301404REM SaltramMeadows 7 and 8.pdf

Comment Date: Tue 09 Jan 2024

Plymouth City Council
Strategic Planning & Infrastructure

Transport Planning Team
Ext: 01752 307813
Date: 4th January 2024
Marie Stainwright
Development Management
Strategic Planning & Infrastructure
Floor 2
Ballard House

Dear Marie

Highway Authority Consultation Response to a Planning Application


APPLICATION NO: 23/01404/REM

SITE: PLYMSTOCK QUARRY, THE RIDE, PLYMSTOCK, PLYMOUTH

DEVELOPMENT: Reserved Matters application further to outline consent 07/01094/OUT for residential development of 223 dwellings (including 39 affordable homes) and associated landscaping and infrastructure


Observations:

I have now reviewed the submitted plans and documents and would wish to respond as follows:

Trip Generation
As this is a Reserved Matters application, all issues relating to trip generation and traffic impacts upon the operation of the local road network, would have been assessed and considered as part of the granting of outline planning consent (app no 07/01094/OUT) and as such I would not wish to raise any further comments in relation to such.

Car Parking
It is not clear how the level of car parking proposed to serve Phases 7 and 8 accords with the site-wide Car Parking Strategy (which is a requirement of a specific condition attached to the outline consent). At the very minimum, I would expect to see the submission of the site-wide Car Parking Strategy as part of this application.

It is noted that internal minimum garage dimensions of 3m in width x 6m in length will be provided. Whilst it is accepted that such garage dimensions are an improvement on the size of those garages provided on earlier phases of the development (rendering many usable for larger vehicles), this is still below the required standards of 3.5m in width x 6.5m in length as outlined within the JLP SPD and is therefore an issue which needs to be addressed in order to ensure that garages are used for their intended purpose.

Based upon the number and size of residential units proposed (the majority being 2 and 3 bed), a total of 488 car parking spaces would be required to serve the development based upon application of the indicative parking standards included within the JLP SPD. With a total of 450 spaces provided, there will be some units which have a reduced level of car parking provision. It would be helpful if the applicant could identify those units and explain why a reduced level of car parking is considered appropriate for them?

I would also wish to raise the following detailed comments in relation to car parking which are as follows:

' On the Car Park Layout Plan no spaces seem to have been allocated to Plot 27? This needs to be clarified. I am assuming that the spaces along the frontage of Plots 25-27 have been incorrectly numbered?
' Clarification on which spaces have been allocated to Plot 110?
' Clarification on which spaces have been allocated to Plot 167?
' An awkward reversing manoeuvre would be required for vehicles reversing out of the car parking spaces serving Plot 59 (assuming that there is a ramp up into the private drive)? This needs to be addressed.
' There are a number of locations where parking spaces are located tight to be the back of the footway and could lead to vehicles parked within those spaces overhanging the adopted highway. Examples of such include spaces serving Plots 49, 63 and 165. These spaces should be moved back into the individual curtilages to avoid the potential overhang issue.
' A similar overhang issue also arises from the layout of the car parking space serving Plot 206.

EV Charging - Whilst the Transport Statement submitted in support of the application states that EV charging should be provided for each property, I would be grateful if this could be confirmed and that EV charging provision will be provided for each dwelling.

Layout
If the road serving Plots 13-21 and 39-44 is to be designed and constructed as a shared surface street (which should be constructed in block paviors), then why are separate footways proposed on either side of the 4.8m wide carriageway? At present the layout of this street is very much car-dominated and does little to embrace the core themes of Manual for Streets 1 and 2 in terms of creating an environment which encourages increased walking and cycling over car use.

Could some consideration be given to realigning the car parking spaces so that they are echelon, thereby creating a larger shared space area which may allow some structural planting to be introduced which would add as a speed reducing feature? This comment should also apply to the proposed longer shared surface road directly opposite which serves Plots 106-149 and 113-138. The Design and Access Statement refers to a Home Zone approach to these streets yet what is proposed is far from the principles of a Home Zone.

As Main Street will be used by buses, the gradients on the ramps to the raised table crossings should be not too steep. I also have concerns over on-street car parking taking place along Main Street which could impact upon bus movements and therefore may require double yellow lines in certain locations. There may also be the need for further bus stops on Main Street.

In order to keep traffic speeds down to 20 mph or less, some additional speed reducing features may be necessary in certain locations. I would certainly suggest a further raised table or narrowing on the Local Street (Road 10) outside Plots 63/64. An additional build-out could be considered outside Plots 163/164.

In order to help reduce traffic speeds further, it is recommended that a carriageway narrowing also be incorporated into the raised table crossings where the north/south pedestrian routes cross the Local Street. The same comment would also apply where the eastern route crosses the Shared Surface Street. Narrowing's would not be appropriate on the Main Street.

What highway surface water drainage arrangements are being made for the collection and disposal of highway surface water from the private courtyards/parking areas?

Tracking plots should be provided in order to demonstrate that each of the turning areas can accommodate the turning movements for refuse vehicles etc.

A visibility splay is shown to go through part of Plot 217. The dwelling should be moved back slightly to ensure that it is located clear of the required splay.

There are currently 4 dwellings shown to be served off the private driveway at the far eastern end of the scheme (Plots 220-223). PCC only allow up to 5 dwellings to be served off a private drive and therefore if further dwellings are proposed to be served off this access under future phases (9 and 10), only 1 further dwelling would be permitted as part of that future scheme.

Walking/Cycling
It is not clear from the information/drawings provided that the proposed design/layout is LTN 1/20 compliant? This needs to be confirmed as the submitted Transport Statement suggests that this is indeed the case yet the Movement Strategy Plan included on Page 29 of the Design and Access/Compliance Statement makes no reference at all to cycle movement. This plan seems to suggest that all of the routes through and around the northern perimeter of the site will cater for pedestrian movements only and not cyclists.

At the absolute minimum the LHA will require the pedestrian route which runs along the entire northern boundary of the site to be of sufficient width so that it operates as a shared footway/cycleway (with appropriate signing and lining). In addition, the short pedestrian routes running alongside Plots 16 and 45 (western side) and Plots 104 and 115 (eastern side) should be widened to allow for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists.

The pedestrian route shown off Road 15 which runs along the frontage of Plots 181, 207 and 206) should be widened in order to allow for dual-use by both pedestrians and cyclists.

With traffic movements along Main Street likely to be quite high, it is recommended that a segregated footway/cycleway be provided along the southern side of Main Street. This could easily be achieved through converting the proposed 2m service margin. This route should then tie-in with suitable crossing facilities on Encombe Street.

Please note that if these changes are not made to the layout to facilitate cycling then this will lead to a highway recommendation of refusal of this reserved matters application.

I look forward to receiving amended plans which incorporates the above-mentioned changes.



Scott Smy
Transport Development Coordinator

Officer authorised to sign on behalf of the Service
Director for Strategic Planning & Infrastructure

Comment Date: Fri 12 Jan 2024

Plymstock Quarry (aka Saltram Meadows), The Ride, Plymstock, Plymouth

23/01404/REM

Housing Delivery Team (HDT) Consultee Comments

This reserved matters application relates to delivery phase 3 of the Plymstock Quarry (aka Saltram Meadows) site.

The HDT understand that this application sits within broader discussions around a reduction to the overall delivery of dwellings on the masterplan site. Implications for affordable housing provision need to be understood before these comments can be finalised. These comments are provided on the basis that we may need to amend this Housing Delivery advice in the future (subject to outstanding legal advice).

Outline permission: 07/01094/OUT
Original s106: signed 5th September 2011
Deed of Variation: signed 18th January 2023

Overall delivery: 223 dwellings are proposed with 39 affordable affordable dwellings (17.5%), of 1684 dwellings originally proposed within the masterplan.

Clawback Review Mechanism: this requires that a Review is commenced 12 months prior to the end of Sub Phase 2c and the provision of 390 Phase 2 Units. The Officer should be satisfied this has been undertaken and no further action or amendment to the AH provision is required. These comments are based on no amendment to the AH provision.

AH provision: s106 requires 208 units as follows 17% (97no.) AH in Ph1, 17% (66no.) in Ph2 and 10.5% (45no.) in Ph3b and 3c.

A Deed of Variation (DoV) was agreed in January 2023 which varies AH delivery phasing to: 74units in Ph1, 50 units in Ph2 and 84 units in Ph3.

The applicants Affordable Housing Statement states that current units delivered or with planning permissions total 124 dwellings. The extant affordable housing requirement is therefore 84 units.

The application proposes delivery of 39 AH units, 17.5% of 223 units proposed in this reserved matters application. This is supported in principle, subject to comments below regarding size and tenure.

AH Tenure mix: s106 requires 50% social rent 50% intermediate affordable housing in each phase. 20 rented and 19 intermediate for sale are proposed, this is supported.

AH Bedroom Mix: Considered against the AH mix agreed in the DoV the application currently proposes to provide a proportion of the AH units required. The below table summarises extant mix as agreed in the DoV. This highlights that the proposals are currently over-providing 2 and 3 bed homes. The HDT would like to see greater provision of 1b and 4b units to balance the overall provision of AH in this phase, to help ensure it meets a broader spectrum of affordable housing need in the city.

See table uploaded separately

The applicant's Affordable Housing Statement states 'A fair reading of [clause 14 of schedule 3 of the original s106] would indicate that, in terms of the precise nature of affordable units provided, the type and size of units proposed is not fixed and some flexibility exists within the legal framework to allow for a slightly different mix of units in terms of size and type than that set out in Schedule 2 of the varied agreement' This has the effect of meaning that in principle phases 7 and 8 could solely deliver 2 bed homes and still be in accordance with the legal agreement in place.'

The HDT strongly disagree with this interpretation and do not agree that it is in the spirit of the s106. The dictionary definition of correspond is to match or be similar or equal to.

As above, the HDT believe the mix should better correspond to that agreed in the DoV. If this cannot be secured in this phase, then it should be secured in subsequent phases.

AH size: JLP Policy DEV10.5 states that all dwellings, including Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and conversions, irrespective of tenure, should meet the Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS).

The Officer should be aware the affordable housing 4b6p typology Grizedale is currently below the NDSS by 5m2.

The Officer should also be aware a number of market unit typologies are also below NDSS, including Alnmouth 2b3p (30 units), Danbury 3b5p (19 units), Chiltern 3b5p (12 units), Kingly 3b5p (4 units). This may present issues were any of the units to be considered for purchase by Registered Providers through additionality funding.

Accessibility:

The applicant's AH statement states that all typologies comply with M4(2) standards internally, this is supported. The applicant goes on to state that M4(2) compliance externally is under review and further details will be provided. HDT have concerns that a significant number of fully compliant accessible dwellings remain outstanding from the original decision and encourage provision to meet that originally set out.

M4(2) criteria are slightly less detailed than their predecessor Lifetime Homes. The Housing Delivery team consider that it would be reasonable to apply the updated M4(2) criteria however this will need to be met in full ' both internal and external design requirements in order to make the dwellings accessible/adaptable. To assist the applicant in accessible design, a checklist of criteria has been sent to the planning officer and further details will be awaited for assessment.

The applicant's AH statement states the applicant is currently considering whether any M4(3) units on the site can be accommodated. While not part of the original s106 agreement, provision of m4(3) affordable or market housing is strongly encouraged.

In conclusion ' there are several matters of concern highlighted in these comments and further information is either awaited or requested.

Comments provided by Amy Luxton and Alex Gandy ' Housing Delivery Officers

Comment Date: Wed 20 Dec 2023

948533 Consultation Response 2.pdf

Comment Date: Mon 18 Dec 2023

Hi

We would look to have an Employment Skills Plan on this and I would be happy to pick this up at an early stage with the contractor.

We are looking at the wording around an informative so that all can be directed to the Building Plymouth website where they will find documents, templates and examples of the KPI's that they would need for the ESP as well as contact details for myself to start the process.

Please let me know if there is anything else that you need at this stage.

Morv