Other

ID sylw: 108371

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

11.1 The SWCs have identified the need to accommodate self-build and custom housebuilding
[SBCH] throughout the plan period to meet demand. Draft Policy B requires that all large
developments (100+ dwellings) allocate 5% of the developable area for SBCH.
11.2 Whilst not explicitly stated in the PO, the HEDNA provides evidence of the need for SBCH
plots, showing an annual average need of 38 and 93 plots in Stratford-on-Avon and
Warwick, respectively. Over the plan period, 3,275 SBCH plots are needed, equating to
about 5% of the SWC’s housing need.
11.3 The NPPF Paragraph 63 and PPG 7emphasise the importance of assessing and reflecting the
need for self-build homes in policy. However, Mackenzie Miller Homes has concerns about
the lack of evidence for the 100 dwelling threshold and 5% requirement. Mackenzie Miller
Homes believes that policies should be based on up-to-date evidence and consider the
economic viability of sites.
11.4 Generally, Mackenzie Miller Homes is supportive of the Draft Policy B but would like to
highlight to the SWCs that the policy could be strengthened. It is suggested that offering
flexibility to respond to local circumstances and providing clarity on what happens if SBCH
plots are marketed but receive no interest. It should be noted that other LPAs have included
provisions allowing SBCH plots to revert to affordable or general housing if there is no
interest after 12 months.
11.5 Sites such as land at Fell Mill and Leasow Farm in Shipston-on-Stour could accommodate
custom and self-build homes, demonstrating the potential for SBCH in various locations
and as such Mackenzie Miller Homes is supportive of the Draft Policy B.

Other

ID sylw: 108372

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

12.1 Mackenzie Miller Homes supports the Government’s proposal to achieve ‘Zero Carbon
Ready’ homes by 2025. As stated within national guidance, this will be achieved through
the application of low carbon heating and hot water technology and highly insulated fabric
building elements i.e. walls, floors and roofs which will in turn reduce the energy demand
for the home.
12.2 In this regard, it is noted that SWC’s draft policy direction-22 proposes that “All new
buildings must be designed and built to be Net Zero Carbon in operation. They must be
ultra-low energy buildings, fossil fuel free, and generate energy on-site to at least match
the annual energy use”.
12.3 Whilst Mackenzie Miller Homes fully supports emerging policies seeking to tackle climate
change with proactive sustainable measures, the client considers that policies must be
sufficiently flexible, fit for purpose and well evidenced.
12.4 The Climate Change Act 2008 commits to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by
2050, which is supported by the NPPF 2024. It is recognised that the SWCs have declared a
climate emergency and have committed to more ambitious targets by reaching net zero
carbon by 2030. Consideration should be given to the Written Ministerial Statement
[WMS] issued by the then Minister of State for Housing, Lee Rowley MP, in December
2023. Although Rights Community Action challenged the WMS in the High Court, the case
was dismissed, affirming that it remains current government policy and a material
consideration. Particularly, it stated that:
“…the Government does not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards
for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation
of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new
homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale. Any planning policies
that propose local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or
planned buildings regulation should be rejected at examination if they do not have a wellreasoned
and robustly costed rationale that ensures:
12.5 That development remains viable, and the impact on housing supply and affordability is
considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.”
12.6 This is supported by Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, which clearly states that:
“The preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-todate
evidence. This should be adequate and proportionate, focused tightly on supporting
and justifying policies concerned, and take into account relevant market signals.”
12.7 Mackenzie Miller Homes recognises that the SWCs are at the early stages of plan-making,
however, the client is concerned that the Councils may seek to make provision for a policy
that deviates from the national requirements without providing sufficient justification.
Although it is noted that Warwick District Council adopted a Net Zero Carbon Development
Plan Document in May 2024, Mackenzie Miller Homes has further concerns over viability testing. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF is clear planning policies should not undermine the
deliverability of the Local Plan and paragraph 70 states that policies should have regard for
the economic viability of sites.
12.8 Therefore, the emerging SWLP will need to be supported by a viability assessment that
cumulatively tests the impact of policy requirements on the viability of sites allocated
within it, including the higher building standards than the Future Homes and Building
Regulations. Furthermore, if the Council wishes to depart from nationally set standards, the
policy must have the flexibility to respond to an unknown future government regulation or
viability implications.
12.9 Mackenzie Miller Homes highlights that the Government’s intention is to achieve zero
carbon by 2025 through a step-by-step introduction of higher building regulations. The
client considers that the Council should therefore align with Building Regulations and the
Future Homes Standard but not exceed it. Whilst in principle, the Council is within its right
to deviate from the Future Homes Standard and Building Regulations where evidence
justifies a higher requirement as per NPPF paragraph 32 and the PPG, it is Mackenzie
Miller Homes’s position that there must be sufficient evidence to support this approach,
and as a result, the plan could be at risk of being found unsound.

Yes

ID sylw: 108373

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

13.1 Generally, Mackenzie Miller Homes supports the SWC’s approach to ensuring future
developments deliver high-quality developments that seek to tackle climate change with
proactive sustainable measures. However, Mackenzie Miller Homes fundamentally
considers that policies must be sufficiently flexible, fit for purpose and well evidenced – as
required by the NPPF.
13.2 Mackenzie Miller Homes recognises the importance of reducing embodied carbon within
the development process, however, wishes to highlight that embodied carbon emissions are
unregulated in the UK. Current policies and regulations focus exclusively on operational
energy use, rather than embodied carbon. At present, there is no nationally approved
regulator, recognised standard, national planning policy, or building regulation
requirement to evaluate and report embodied carbon emissions or conduct whole life cycle
carbon assessments. Notably, the Future Homes Standards - MHCLG Consultation on
changes to Parts L and F of the Building Regulations does not suggest an embodied carbon
target.
13.3 It is recognised that SWCs are within its right to deviate from the Future Homes Standard
and Building Regulations, however, Paragraph 32 of the NPPF is clear that the
“preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date
evidence.” In this context, whilst supportive in principle, Mackenzie Miller Homes has
concerns that the SWCs are seeking to make provision for a policy that deviates from the
national requirements without providing sufficient justification. Indeed, none of the SWC’s
evidence base produced to date outlines policy options for embodied carbon; albeit it is
noted that the SWC’s SWLP’s Technical Evidence ‘Future Work’ suggests that ‘Climate
Change Evidence’ will be prepared to support the SWLP, alongside the ‘Site Delivery &
Viability Studies’. However, this evidence would need to sufficiently demonstrate that such
an approach is justified (Para 36b, NPPF), aspirational but deliverable (Para 16b, NPPF),
and not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan (Para 35, NPPF).
13.4 Mackenzie Miller Homes also wishes to highlight that other Councils have proposed a
similar requirement for developments, which have not been accepted by Inspectors.
Particularly, in 2022 West Oxfordshire District Council [WODC] submitted its Area Action
Plan [AAP] for a Salt Cross Garden Village – a case study recognised in the SWC’s ‘Climate
Change Baseline Report (2022) at paragraph 4.5.4. The AAP included Draft Policy 2 (Net
Zero Carbon Development), which required all new development to be net zero on-site
through the use of ultra-low energy fabric specification, low carbon technologies, on-site
renewable energy generation and embodied carbon reductions – Notably, Policy 2 required
developments to meet a < 500 kg CO2/m2 requirement.
13.5 However, the Inspector felt that the policy was inconsistent with national policy, as the
standards within it amounted to a significant uplift on Building Regulations – which
conflicted with then Secretary of State for Communities and Government – Eric Pickles MP
– Written Ministerial Statement [WMS] in March 2015, which stated that policies should
“not be used to set conditions on planning permissions with requirements above the equivalent of the energy requirement of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes”. In
addition, the Inspector noted that the 2015 WMS “remains current national policy on this
matter” (IR124) – indeed, this position remains in the PPG (PPG ID: 6-012-20190315).
13.6 The Inspector also highlighted that whilst Section 1 of the Planning and Energy Act 2008
does allow for some policies to exceed energy requirements of building regulations if they
are deemed reasonable and consistent with national policies, in that instance, the
requirements were not reasonable (IR30). Furthermore, the Inspector highlighted that:
• There was a lack of evidence base to demonstrate the appropriateness of building
typologies and how key performance indicators were selected over alternatives;
• The standards within the plan were too rigid, and could not be realistically met by the
end user; and
• The standards of the policy were not flexible when having regard to the ever-changing
net zero building policy nor to “technological and market advancements and more
stringent nationally set standards, including within the Building Regulations” (IR137).
• Consequently, the Inspector suggested a series of modifications to the policy –
including the deletion of the embodied carbon KPI – and suggested below amendment
to the policy wording:
13.7 “An energy statement will be required for all major development, which should
demonstrate the following:
13.8 …Embodied carbon – reducing the impact of construction by minimising the amount of
upfront embodied carbon emissions including appropriate embodied carbon targets. A
calculation of the expected upfront embodied carbon of buildings and full lifecycle
modelling”
13.9 Furthermore, regard should still be given to the then Minister of State for Housing’s – Lee
Rowley MP – Written Ministerial Statement [WMS] in December 2023. Whilst this was
challenged in the High Court by Rights Community Action, the case was dismissed,
meaning the WMS remains current government policy and a material consideration.
13.10 In this context, Mackenzie Miller Homes emphasises that the Government aims to achieve
zero carbon by 2025 through the gradual implementation of higher building regulations.
While the SWCs are generally permitted to deviate from the Future Homes Standard and
Building Regulations if there is evidence supporting a higher requirement as set out in
Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, PPG, and the 2023 WMS, Mackenzie Miller Homes points out
that adequate evidence is necessary to justify this approach.

Other

ID sylw: 108375

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

14.1 In Draft Policy Direction-38 the PO document highlights that all developments (unless
exempt) must achieve a minimum of 10% BNG. In this regard, Mackenzie Miller Homes
supports the inclusion of compensatory measures, including biodiversity offsetting (i.e.
BNG). Indeed, Paragraph 33 of the NPPF is clear that Local Plans should demonstrate how
plans have addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives, which
includes opportunities for net gains. Furthermore, Paragraph 180(d) of the NPPF states
that planning policies should contribute to and enhance the local and natural environment
by:
“minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by
establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future
pressures and incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as
swifts, bats and hedgehogs;”
14.2 However, the PPG is clear that:
14.3 “Plan-makers should be aware of the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, but
they do not need to include policies which duplicate the detailed provisions of this
statutory framework…” (PPG ID: 74-006) (Emphasis Added)
14.4 In this respect, it is recognised that the Councils are at the early stages of plan-making and
Mackenzie Miller Homes would like to advise that it is not necessary to include the BNG
policy to avoid duplicating policies within the statutory framework for BNG.

Other

ID sylw: 108376

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

15.1 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to
the achievement of sustainable development and Paragraph 8 of the NPPF is clear that
sustainable development comprises three overarching objectives: economic, social and
environmental. It is also clear that opportunities should be taken to achieve net gains (Para
8). On the face of it, the delivery of Environmental Net Gain [ENG] would align with the
NPPF and also be appropriate given that the SWCs have declared climate emergencies – it
would also align with WDC’s ‘Climate Emergency Action Programme’ and SOADC’s
‘Council Plan 2019-2023’. As such, Mackenzie Miller Homes broadly supports the SWC’s
wider sustainable development aspirations and the principle of ENG.
15.2 Mackenzie Miller Homes recognises that ENG involves a series of comprehensive 'net
improvements' to nature, including enhancements to water and air quality. Despite
Mackenzie Miller Homes overall support, the SWCs should consider Paragraph 16(f) of the
NPPF, which emphasizes serving a clear purpose and avoiding unnecessary duplication. It's
crucial to read Development Plans in their entirety. Therefore, Mackenzie Miller Homes
believes that, in its current form, the draft policy does not 'serve a clear purpose' or avoid
'unnecessary duplication,' as decision-makers must consider the broader SWLP policies,
such as draft Policy Directions 22, 24, 29, and 39, when interpreting the SWLP as a whole
15.3 Furthermore, Paragraph 16(b) of the NPPF is clear that policies should be aspirational, but
deliverable and Paragraph 16(d) sets out that policies should be clearly written and
unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision-maker should react to development proposals.
15.4 While it is acknowledged that the SWCs are in the early stages of plan-making, Mackenzie
Miller Homes is currently concerned that the SWCs may aim to establish a policy that is
'aspirational' but not 'deliverable.' At present, the policy is 'unclear' due to the absence of an
existing ENG framework. The SWCs themselves acknowledge this in the PO (Pg.158),
noting that such a framework has not yet been formulated.

Other

ID sylw: 108378

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

16.1 Mackenzie Miller Homes recognises the economic and environmental advantages of best
and most versatile [BMV] agricultural land but considers the SWCs' approach to be
unnecessary.
16.2 The NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance
the natural and local environment by “recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services –
including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural
land…” (Para 187b). Nevertheless, the SWCs should have regard to Paragraph 16(f) of the
NPPF which states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary
duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this
Framework, where relevant).”
16.3 It is therefore, Mackenzie Miller Homes’ view that that a policy that largely duplicates the
protections for BMV land already provided in the NPPF would neither ‘serve a clear
purpose’ nor would it avoid ‘unnecessary duplication’, since decision-taker must consider
the NPPF requirements regardless.