Local Plan

Inland Homes PLC supports the efficient and effective use of brownfield land to create sustainable new communities and considers that Chapel Riverside is a fantastic example of how this can be achieved despite considerable site constraints. Whilst Inland Homes PLC considers that density is just one measure when it comes to judging appropriate development, it is considered that, if density standards are to be applied, then Inland Homes PLC supports the Council’s use of ‘minimum’ densities given the need to make the most efficient use of land, notwithstanding that other relevant considerations, such as accessibility and surrounding development, will be looked at.Inland Homes PLC queries as to why there is a need to demonstrate connectivity to heat network zones will impact on an appropriate density, as surely there will be a need for each development to have a site-specific energy strategy that will need to meet the criteria of other energy-based policies within the Local Plan. As such, Inland Homes PLC suggest that the reference under point (7) of this policy be removed

Object. We would welcome further discussion on the basis of the proposed density standards, particularly in the city centre, and how they can be achieved while still protecting and enhancing the character of existing streets and neighbourhoods (criterion 1) and demonstrating appropriate and respectful design in accordance with adopted character or conservation area appraisals (5).

Sovereign supports the use of baseline density ranges of between 35 dph and 250 dph with the latter being city centre but also support the assertion within the policy that all applications will be judged on their own merits and in light of local context. This is clearly subject to the 11 criteria set out in the policy, taking account of context and the need to provide high quality open space, create and/or integrate existing active travel and public transport links, demonstrate the efficient and effective use of land. Whilst efficient and effective use of land is wholeheartedly supported density needs to take into account the other policies within the plan requiring Biodiversity Net Gain, open space, parking, footpath access and private amenity space. More generally Sovereign supports the assertion that development within and adjacent to the transport corridors and hubs is sustainable.

The policy sets out various criteria by which it will deliver optimal density standards within the city, including the need to provide adequate high-quality open space on the development site or in the local area, the need to consider flood risk and deliver appropriate reduction and mitigation measures, the need to demonstrate efficient land use. Additionally, development of derelict and underused land will be encouraged where the land is not supporting significant wildlife or nature conservation interest.

It is advised that the Policy clearly sets out how it will assess the acceptable standards of the criteria outlined above, to support development in achieving optimal residential housing density and avoid adverse impacts on the environment.

We would ask that the following text is included under point 3 ‘The site is not or will not by the end of its expected lifetime, be within a tidal or fluvial flood risk zone 2 or 3 when accounting for climate change predictions. Policy wording around flood risk should be stronger to require any development to reduce flood risk, both on and off site, and to include appropriate reduction and mitigation measures.

Building Future Holdings Ltd supports the density of a “minimum” density of 100dph for the site as it is within an identified transport corridor. This is clearly subject to the 11 criteria set out in the policy. It is considered that criteria no8 “The land is not identified as being safeguarded for non-residential use" should not be included within the density policy, as this should be set out separately under a separate planning policy. If the principle to change the use of land is acceptable, then the matter need not form part of a density consideration, whereas the other criteria may still carry weight or relevance.

Emerging Policy HO1 recognises the need to provide a significant number of new dwellings within Southampton’s constrained urban area, and therefore there is a pressing need to make the most efficient use of land. It also highlights the need to balance the need to optimise sites with the need to protect and enhance the character of the area.

The emerging policy proposes minimum density requirements for the city centre (250 dwellings per hectare (dph)) and town centres (150 dph), as well as transport corridors and hubs. Within the rest of the city, a density of between 35-75 dwellings per hectare (dph) is proposed, subject to local context.

We note that that proposed policies on density and tall buildings would allow for buildings of potentially significant height and a with a high number of storeys. Whilst supporting the principle of making efficient use of land, the criteria of these policies will therefore be important to ensure that well designed high quality development and living environments for residents are achieved, in order to avoid the difficulties which resulted from the high rise buildings of the past. Any such development close to the boundaries of the city, should also take account of neighbouring areas.

The intention to increase housing densities on development across the city is supported as a useful measure of how efficient new housing is and in delivering more affordable housing. To demonstrate the Council’s commitment to increasing affordable housing delivery to meet local housing needs, the list of criteria in the draft policy could be extended to include “the need to deliver affordable housing”. This would also help understand how the Council will balance this priority with the other listed elements.

We would ask that the following text is included under point 3 􀍚The site is not or will not by the end of its expected lifetime, be within a tidal or fluvial flood risk zone 2 or 3 when accounting for climate change predictions. Policy wording around flood risk should be stronger to require any development to reduce flood risk, both on and off site, and to include appropriate reduction and mitigation measures.

We would like to see the plan refer to criteria around Healthy Streets. What is Healthy Streets? — Healthy Streets (see below), with the principles of
• Everyone feels welcome
• Clean air
• People feel relaxed
• Things to see and do
• People feel safe
• People chose to walk and cycle
• Not too noisy
• Places to stop and rest
• Shade and shelter
• Easy to cross
We know from various community engagement activities across the city, that people also value the role of greenery in our city and access to water.

We would like to see involvement exercise in terms of what makes a healthy street in Southampton, recognising that different parts of the city may have different criteria and priorities. Involvement of local people could then form the basis of supplementary planning documents such as Neighbourhood Plans.

Point 2. Lack of private open space (gardens) can be a big issue for people, include people with children and giving access to a nature and places to grow fruit and vegetables.
In terms of healthy housing, air quality needs to be considered, and this is worst within the major transport corridors. All housing should be provided in areas where the air quality is good enough to live healthily.

Accessibility is relative to where you live or spend time, how far you are able to travel, what your mode of travel is and what your access needs are etc. We prefer an approach of 10 minute neighbourhoods based on a Healthy Streets approach.

7. The need to demonstrate connectivity to heat network zones - In terms of is policy, we feel that the concept of a “heat network zone” needs more explanation.

In terms of policy point 10 (10. The site is not unfit for development by reason of its location close to dust, fumes, hazards or nuisance created by nearby industrial or commercial activity) we wonder why this is not extended to include any pollution source, rather than focusing only on the pollution created by industrial or commercial activity?

High density housing solutions - especially where they are able to include family housing - should be supported by adequate infrastructure e.g. child play areas, MUGAs, pocket parks

In 11, the word 'significant' is too strong a word and creates too high a bar. We must increase environmental protection and therefore have a lower bar for excluding development that effects nature.

Some consideration of key view/sightlines with regard to heritage needs to be considered plus public access to any waterfront linked to tall buildings.

Adequate provision for parking should be included as its delusional to believe that public transport/walking/cycling are suitable for use by all residents in developments. Lower density developments would allow for this and be more desirable for both sellers and purchasers. There is currently barely enough on-street parking in the city centre areas and it will be increasingly difficult for residents and visitors to park once the current developments are completed.

In the existing City Centre Plan, "unfit for development" was not considered as a reason to object to siting 650 flats alongside a cruise ship berth and major port. So I would like to see some very specific wording here about what constitutes "unfit for development". In the case of the Leisure World site, permission has been given for flats which will require noise insulation, mechanical ventilation (presumably with HEPA filters) and windows that don't open. I don't regard that as "fit for development". I don't think people should be forced to live in such circumstances. How can this policy ensure that doesn't happen again? Could item 10 be re-worded to provide something actionable, measurable and understandable? How would such a decision be taken?

Agree with 2 and as with earlier comment no reliance on the 150 year old Central Parks.
No rabbit hutch type development, the new slums of tomorrow.

The density is too high . The Old Town should specifically excluded from these figures and not lumped in with city centre. The Old Town is a jewel in Southampton and is not appreciated it would appear by these statements. Some joined up thinking about how to protect the city's assets alongside managed growth would be welcome.

I think the density targets are not ambitious enough. i believe that both all four sections should have higher density standards.

No, this seems quiet ok.

Interested to see flood mentioned, where agreement had been given to development on land projected to be extreme flood risk in 10-30 years (toys'r'rus site). Much more will need to be done to look at the areas of the city likely to end up uninhabitable on the medium term.

"4. Accessibility and the need to create and/or integrate with existing active travel and public transport links and hubs, where possible;" REMOVE the last bit for "where possible. These developments SHOULD ONLY be built where wheeling, walking, cycling, bus and trains come first.

10. The site is not unfit... dust, fumes, hazard or nusiance...' What about poor air quality due to traffic and/or industry. Also what about noise nuisance due to the Port, Industry and indeed the Airport?
11. 'The land does not support significant wildlife or nature conservation interests' - define 'significant'. This is important and I wouldn't want to leave loopholes for developer to argue over definitions.

i support the text

Yes. ADOPT SENSIBLE TARGETS RATHER THAN CREATING FUTURE GHETTOES.

I would increase minimum dph throughout the city, we need fewer large, detached single family homes & more midrise in their midst!

As per the previous comment, sub-clause 5) advises that high density development must be in accordance with the adopted character or conservation area appraisal. Intensification of land uses in areas will inevitably result in a change to the character of that area and there needs to be an acknowledgement of this and appropriate flexibility in the wording of the policy.

Put in something about avoiding building on flood risk areas, as sea levels are rising and we are getting wetter winters.

Keep high rise to a bare minimum.

Disagree with the density figures but the other wording makes sense apart from item 2. How can you increase population density and ensure high quality open space, other than building tower blocks which don’t generate long term feelings of community.

It is too high in the city centre.

The city is struggling for parking spaces, you need to force any development e.g. flat or blocks to build underground or first level parking as part of the cost of builidng. if you have 20 flat you must include 20 off street spaces. A common thing you see in cities in europe. put the parking issue onto the developer and not the council.

Infrastructure such as health care and schools need to be considered.

The main needs of residents (and new migrants to Southampton from other cities/nations) is cheap affordable housing. Mixed-use density matters more than appearance in this regard.