Health and wellbeing
Question HW 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards health and wellbeing, as set out in HW 1 'Health and wellbeing' above? If not, please suggest how it could be amended?
76 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for health and wellbeing policy approach HW 1 | A significant majority of respondents support embedding health and wellbeing into the Local Plan, recognising the planning system’s role in shaping healthier communities and addressing wider determinants of health. |
| Access to green and blue infrastructure | Strong emphasis is placed on protecting and enhancing access to green space, blue spaces, Green Belt and public rights of way, with respondents highlighting the physical and mental health benefits of nature and water-based environments. |
| Protection of existing Green Belt and open land | Many respondents stress that retention of Green Belt and open countryside is fundamental to health and wellbeing, questioning the compatibility of proposed housing growth with policy objectives. |
| Healthcare infrastructure and capacity | Respondents repeatedly raise concerns about access to GP surgeries, dentists and wider healthcare provision, calling for infrastructure to be planned and delivered alongside housing growth, particularly in rural areas. |
| Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) | There are mixed views on the requirement for Health Impact Assessments, with some advocating mandatory HIAs for major developments, while others consider them unnecessary duplication unless significant harm is identified. |
| Design quality and healthy environments | Respondents emphasise the importance of high-quality design in promoting healthy living, including daylight, ventilation, thermal comfort, active travel, and safe, inclusive neighbourhoods. |
| Active travel and accessibility | Many submissions highlight the role of walking and cycling infrastructure, safe routes and inclusive design in supporting active lifestyles and reducing health inequalities. |
| Impact on residential amenity | Respondents stress that residential amenity should be broadly defined, extending beyond noise and odour to include traffic, congestion, air quality, light pollution and cumulative impacts from large-scale development. |
| Air quality, pollution and environmental health | Strong support is expressed for addressing air quality, contamination, land instability and pollution, recognising their direct impacts on human health and quality of life. |
| Construction impacts and management | Several respondents support the use of Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMPs) to manage construction-phase impacts, with calls for clearer and more consistent requirements. |
| Special educational needs and social infrastructure | Concerns are raised about inadequate special educational needs provision and wider social infrastructure capacity, with fears that housing growth will exacerbate existing shortfalls. |
| Heritage, character and place identity | Respondents highlight the importance of conserving heritage assets and local character as part of creating places that support wellbeing and community identity. |
| Equality, accessibility and inclusion | A number of respondents note insufficient consideration of disabled people, older residents and disadvantaged groups, calling for improvements to accessibility and the existing built environment. |
| Waterways, canals and blue infrastructure | Detailed representations emphasise the health, wellbeing and economic benefits of canals and waterways, alongside the need to safeguard their structural integrity and environmental quality. |
| Delivery and policy effectiveness | Some respondents question whether policy aspirations will translate into delivery, expressing concern about conflicting objectives and the practical implementation of health-focused policies. |
Question HW 2
Do you have any thoughts on the threshold of the health impact assessment requirement?
20 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Thresholds for Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) | Respondents express widely differing views on appropriate thresholds for Health Impact Assessments, ranging from low thresholds (of 10 or more dwellings) in sensitive locations to high thresholds limited to very large developments (of more than 500 dwellings), with many calling for a proportionate and evidence‑led approach. |
| Focus on major development | Many respondents support restricting Health Impact Assessment (HIA) requirements to major residential or commercial schemes, commonly suggesting thresholds of 50 or 100 dwellings or more, to avoid unnecessary burden on smaller developments. |
| Sensitive locations and cumulative impacts | There is strong support for requiring Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) in sensitive locations such as Air Quality Management Areas, near schools or care homes, and where cumulative impacts from multiple developments may arise. |
| Rural areas and Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) | Several respondents highlight rural villages and HMOs as areas where even modest developments can have disproportionate health and infrastructure impacts, justifying lower thresholds for Health Impact Assessments (HIAs). |
| Consistency with national policy and practice guidance | Respondents stress that any requirement for Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) should align with national policy and Planning Practice Guidance, which frame HIAs as a useful tool where significant impacts are likely, rather than a blanket requirement. |
| Plan‑led health considerations | Some respondents argue that health impacts should be addressed primarily through Local Plan policy and site allocations, with application‑level Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) only required where proposals depart from the plan. |
| Proportionality and mitigation | There is broad agreement that where Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) are required they should be proportionate in scope, focused on significant adverse impacts, and clearly set out mitigation measures. |
| Air quality and monitoring | Some respondents emphasise the importance of monitoring air quality before and after development, particularly for major schemes, to ensure no deterioration in environmental health outcomes. |
| No support | A number of respondents do not support introducing Health Impact Assessment (HIA) requirements. |
Question HW 3
Should we consider reviewing the separation distances between facing windows of main habitable rooms, as set out in current Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM 2 Impact on residential amenity, and include them in a policy in the new Local Plan?
26 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Retention of existing separation distances | A strong majority of respondents support retaining existing separation distance standards (notably the 21m habitable window distance), viewing them as essential to protecting privacy, outlook, daylight and residential amenity, and cautioning against relaxation. |
| Calls to increase separation distances | Some respondents argue that minimum separation distances should be increased, particularly in village and rural contexts, to protect character, prevent suburbanisation and safeguard health and wellbeing. |
| Health, wellbeing and residential amenity | Many representations emphasise the link between separation distances and physical and mental health, noting impacts on privacy, outlook, daylight, noise and odour, and warning that over‑development can undermine wellbeing. |
| Urban design flexibility with safeguards | Some respondents support reviewing distances to allow design flexibility in urban areas but stress this should only occur where equivalent levels of amenity, green space and quality of environment are demonstrably maintained. |
| Clarification of policy application | Respondents request greater clarity on how separation distances apply in practice, including treatment of blank elevations, ground floor walls and overlooking from balconies, which are becoming more common in new developments. |
| Separation distances best addressed through supplementary plan/ guidance | Developers and some professional respondents argue that detailed separation distances should be set out in a design guide or Supplementary Planning Document to allow for flexibility, regular review and context-specific responses rather than fixed policy requirements. |
| Concerns about rigid standards and density | A number of development interests argue that rigid separation standards are outdated, limit efficient land use, reduce density and may conflict with national design objectives, citing examples where reduced distances operate elsewhere. |
Question HW 4
What is an appropriate quantity of outdoor amenity space to be provided in new developments? What approach should we apply to apartments/flats?
28 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Need for minimum quantitative standards | A large proportion of respondents support the introduction of minimum quantitative standards for outdoor amenity space to ensure consistency, certainty and adequate living environments, while allowing limited flexibility where high quality can be demonstrated. |
| Private gardens for houses | Many respondents stress the importance of private gardens for houses, commonly suggesting minimum garden sizes or proportions of plots, particularly in lower-density developments, to support families, wellbeing and privacy. |
| Outdoor space for flats and apartments | There is strong support for requiring usable outdoor amenity space for flats and apartments, including balconies, terraces, roof gardens or high-quality communal gardens, with concerns that without standards such space is often omitted or unusable. |
| Balconies and usable design | Respondents frequently emphasise that balconies should be mandatory for upper-floor flats and of sufficient size to be genuinely usable for seating and everyday activities, rather than tokenistic or decorative. |
| Communal and shared amenity space | Support is expressed for well-designed communal gardens and shared courtyards that are secure, landscaped, and capable of being actively used and managed by residents, rather than leftover space around parking areas. |
| Child-friendly and inclusive spaces | Several respondents highlight the need for outdoor amenity space to be child-friendly and inclusive, incorporating play areas, seating, safe routes and spaces suitable for older people and families. |
| Green infrastructure and biodiversity | Respondents emphasise that outdoor amenity space should contribute to green infrastructure, including tree planting, wildlife areas and retention of existing features, recognising wider environmental and health benefits. |
| Relationship to public open space | Some respondents argue that amenity space standards should take account of proximity to existing high-quality public open space, allowing some flexibility on constrained sites while still ensuring access to outdoor space. |
| Clarity through Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and policy detail | Many respondents consider that detailed requirements, thresholds and exclusions (such as bin and cycle storage) would be best addressed through a dedicated SPD, to provide clarity while allowing adaptability over time. |
| Protection of privacy and amenity | Several representations stress that outdoor amenity space should be designed to protect privacy and avoid harmful overlooking between dwellings, particularly in denser developments. |
Question HW 5
Would it be useful for elements of the Council's Hot food takeaways guidance note 2023 to be added to the policy approach? Please specify which elements?
12 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong support for restricting hot food takeaways near schools | Many respondents support policies restricting new hot food takeaways close to schools and other sensitive locations, citing evidence linking proximity to unhealthy food outlets with childhood obesity and poor diet outcomes. |
| Distance thresholds and exclusion zones | Respondents refer to a range of potential exclusion distances, commonly between 400m and 1,000m around schools, playgrounds and leisure facilities, with calls for these standards to be embedded in policy rather than guidance. |
| Clustering and over‑concentration of takeaways | There is strong concern about the over‑concentration of hot food takeaways within centres, with respondents linking clustering to reduced retail diversity, anti‑social behaviour, litter and negative health outcomes. |
| Environmental and Amenity Impacts | Respondents highlight the environmental impacts of takeaways, including litter, waste, noise, traffic congestion and vehicle emissions from drive‑throughs, which can undermine environmental quality and public health. |
| Policy versus personal choice | A minority of respondents oppose policy intervention, arguing that food choice is a matter of individual responsibility and that restrictions would represent unnecessary over‑regulation. |
| Support for healthy food alternatives | Some respondents encourage policies that actively support healthier food outlets, independent retailers and community cafés as positive alternatives to unhealthy takeaways. |
| Drive‑through takeaways | Specific concern is raised about drive‑through outlets, which are associated with increased litter, idling emissions and traffic congestion, leading to calls for their restriction or exclusion from certain areas. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.