Practical criteria for evaluating development proposals

Transcription

1 Room 163 Main Building University of Winchester Sparkford Road Winchester SO22 4NR Winchester Action on Climate Change Ltd Registered charity no Winchester Action on Climate Change is pleased to contribute to the thinking behind LPP2, and believes that careful thought will ensure the document will become an important tool for implementing Winchester City Council s commitment to reducing emissions that accelerate global warming and to developing a sustainable prosperous community. We agree with the City of Winchester Trust s statement that Winchester should continue to be a special place in which to live, work or visit, to grow up or grow old and to enjoy ourselves. This will entail new homes and businesses built in the best possible locations for the future of the City. We believe, in addition, that a clearer, more operationalized vision document should be developed so that the Council can make its decisions about all developments in Winchester Town (new housing and other developments) in the context of an agreed aspiration for the Town s future. For example, whether Winchester should be a dormitory town for commuters or a thriving community; whether the shops should provide local produce or cheap supermarket goods; whether they should cater for tourists or for people who live and work locally; whether it is more important to infill every space to save the countryside, or to maintain green spaces for unstructured play. Such a vision document need not be binding, but would set an aspirational context against which proposals could be judged. We agree that LPP2, and decisions on where new homes and businesses should be built, should be based on clear criteria. A vision document would assist in setting the criteria. In its absence, we set out below our suggestions for these criteria. As you will see, these do not differ a great deal from those suggested by the City of Winchester Trust, although we give a as you would expect, we include a stronger emphasis on the carbon footprint resulting from both construction and living in new housing. We believe these criteria are in line with both LPP1 and the Town Forum s Vision for the City. 1

2 Practical criteria for evaluating development proposals Each site proposed for development should be scored to assess the extent to which it meets the following criteria. 1) Development Location, Density & Orientation. Whether: 1. it contributes to the overall vision for Winchester Town set out in the Town Forum vision and accompanying documents. For example, does the development contribute to the whole being greater than the sum of the parts? 2. The site has a negative impact on the character of the city, the landscape and infrastructure? 3. The site maximises benefits (planning gain)? This could range from provision of open space to enhancing the gateways to the city. 4. The site can deliver 40% affordable housing 5. The site is brownfield. 6. It is in a sustainable location i.e. close to: a. public transport b. infrastructure and essential services. 7. It has been designed to an average density similar to that of historic city suburbs such as Hyde i.e. roads & buildings oriented to maximise: 2) Building Design a. the use of natural daylight b. passive solar heating c. photo-voltaic electricity generation d. energy-free cooling e.g. shading (e.g. by trees). Whether the buildings are: 8. designed for long-term adaptability long life, loose fit, low energy. 9. Designed to be dismantled and recycled easily at the end of their useful life. 10. If residential, designed with a fabric first approach, achieving Code for Sustainable Homes level 5 on energy, 4 on water (even if the Government implements its intention of revoking the power to require Codes, these still form a valuable measure of the extent to which buildings contribute to global warming). 11. If non-residential, designed to meet BREEAM Excellent standard. 3) Embedded Carbon & Materials Selection Whether this proposal demonstrates: 12. Minimum use of new materials with high embedded carbon content. 13. Maximum use of renewable materials which lock in carbon such as sustainably sourced timber. 14. Maximum use of recycled materials to minimise embedded carbon. 2

3 15. No demolition of sound, usable structures with large embedded carbon, unless the proposed development will deliver a better carbon footprint across its whole life. 4) Energy Generation, Supply & Export Whether the proposal: 16. maximises use of renewable technologies appropriate to the size and scale of the development, such as solar thermal systems, solar PV, heat pumps, CHP, biomass boilers. 17. Includes heating distribution suitable for district heating 18. Includes heating generation for district heating from renewable sources e.g. biomass, solar thermal; 19. Shows emissions from the development will be fully off-set in the course of a year by the use of renewable energy measures such as solar PV, large wind turbines, renewable district heating, CHP or tri-generation schemes. (Offsetting via Allowable Solutions is only acceptable after sustainable energy schemes have been maximised.) 20. Is for mixed use that minimises travel, increase social cohesion, and optimises the complementary use of local renewable energy measures (such as sharing day-time and night -time energy uses, or linking heating and refrigeration). 5) The Quality of the Public Realm Whether the proposal: 21. Has a location and design that facilitate permeability and safe and pleasant walking through the development and between the development and town centre/ shops/ schools / facilities 22. Has access to green open spaces 23. Has access to areas appropriate for informal play, not only official playgrounds 24. Encourages cycling 25. Does not encourage automatic use of private vehicles for example, parking facilities not immediately outside front doors are preferred 26. Is close toa rail station 27. Is close to a bus stop 28. For major housing developments a. includes plans for civic amenities (e.g., education, medical, dental, retail, employment, recreation) within the development b. reduces the need for travel by providing good walking, cycling and public transport access to essential services (e.g., education, medical, retail, employment, recreation). c. includes funded measures to offset the traffic impacts of the development on strategic and local road networks (for example by subsidy of public transport provision). LPP1 s intention to reduce traffic levels and emissions should not be compromised nor key junctions in or near urban areas overloaded. d. Ensures that additional bus routes provided from developers contributions, will operate till late at night and at weekends? 3

4 Transport and access We believe that LPP2 should build on the framework set out in LPP1. Section 4 includes useful statements about transport and access. We hope particularly hope that LPP2 can develop the ideas in LPP1 on: Reducing the level of traffic in the city centre Improving air quality Safety of pedestrians and cyclists Reducing parking in the centre by 500 spaces by

5 This is reinforced by adopted policy WT1 on page 35: Much remains to be done to ensure that the aspirations of LPP1 become a reality, and detailed plans have yet to be worked out. Modal Transfer The key to making giant strides in creating a low carbon Winchester is to encourage modal transfer from cars to walking, cycling and public transport. Cycling and walking produce no direct carbon emissions, and public transport reduces carbon emissions associated with travel dramatically. See for full details. There are many ways LPP2 could encourage this modal transfer: A walking strategy fully resourced with o standards for ensuring infrastructure that will promote and encourage walking and remove the many current obstacles o clear criteria for setting priorities and timetables, and subsequently o a full programme of improvements, including the progressive introduction of pedestrian zones where possible. This would lead to removal of traffic blight which would help businesses to flourish. 5

6 For example this would help resolve the difficulties raised over the recent extra care home proposal recently proposed for Chesil Street. The danger and discomfort for pedestrians on the narrow footways in Chesil Street and City Bridge, and the traffic blight to the businesses close to City Bridge caused by the impact of too much traffic would be addressed if more space were to be allocated to pedestrians. An explicit commitment to, and programme of introduction of shared space zones wherever this is possible in the City Centre. There is potential in Chesil Street, Friarsgate, St George s Street and Jewry Street, outside Westgate and at the Carfax Junction by the Albion. A renewed commitment to the Winchester District Cycling Strategy, including o a regrouping of schemes to provide safe through routes across the city centre, o a network of routes from all parts of the city to the railway station to build on the rapidly growing use of bikes to access rail services in support of the HCC Station Transport Plan o a good cycling route between the station and the national park. A coherent application of the strategic aims of the Winchester City Council Car Parking Strategy. In particular we are concerned: o that there be a clear relationship between the Car Parking Strategy and LPP1: there is no reference to the reduction proposed in LPP1 of 500 spaces in the centre. In the Cabinet paper this has drifted on page 16, with no explanation, to a tentative suggestion of increasing parking provision in the Shopping Quarter: with the redevelopment of surface car parks and replacement with possible improved deck provision on the Middle Brook Street site o That there is an inconsistency in the policy s adoption of the WinACC proposal that parking be concentrated at the gates of the city and the proposal that there be an increase in spaces at Middle Brook Street. The statement gateway car parks located on the edge of the city will be enhanced so that motorists can park close to their entry and exit route without entering the one way system would suggest at the very least that any additional places be provided at Durngate, Chesil, and at Cattle Market / Worthy Road. We feel that proposals to increase capacity at Gladstone Street, River Park and Middle Brook Street will be inconsistent with this strategic aim, and contribute negatively to the traffic blight on the central circulatory system. Worse, there is now a non-compliant proposal to reduce the capacity of Cattle Market / Worthy Road as part of the station area development proposals. o That with the re-submission of the Silver Hill development proposal, the council should take the opportunity to limit the scale of the shoppers parking spaces in the development. It would be in line with the parking strategy if the council were to dispense with shopper parking spaces and reduce the scale of the development. Adequate unused parking is already available in sufficient quantity at the Park-and-Ride car parks and at Chesil, and reduction in central parking spaces could have the additional benign effect of making the Park-and-Ride provision viable by increasing demand. An explicit reference to the growing potential of the railway station as a key low-carbon access and exit point for Winchester. Since 1997 usage has doubled (see graph below), and 66% more people pass through the railway station every day than pass through the High Street at its busiest point. At the same time there has been a gradual decline in car parking in Winchester over the last six years (March 2013 car parking survey WCC). There is no indication that these trends will not continue. We believe that this should be celebrated and exploited as a way of 6

7 reducing the excessive transport carbon footprint of the district. At 47% of the whole carbon footprint, transport contributes one of the highest proportions (33 rd ) in the country so the reduction of transport carbon should be a particular priority for Winchester. Higher levels of rail use will be an important tool in tackling this problem. For this reason Winchester should commit itself to even greater use of the railway, and give full support to initiatives that will achieve this, not least the current Station Travel Plan. A specific strategy for increasing use of buses is essential for reducing traffic blight and pollution, especially of the type we have suffered recently, by: o making extensive use of the potential of CIL, o developing the potential for a good transport interchange at the station, o actively engaging with commercial operators to support the creative development of the bus network o ensuring that they work together to grow their share of the transport market with through ticketing, better co-ordination of services and improvement of the service offer that will encourage modal transfer from cars. We hope that transport strategies designed to reduce the carbon footprint of the district can be embedded fully within LPP2 and help ensure that the high per capita footprint of Winchester can be reduced. Chris Holloway, Director, 4 April