Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Q8

Representation ID: 13218

COMMENT Building Partnerships Ltd represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)

Summary:

Historic under delivery across the district provides support for Option HD1 - Option HD1 - Apply a contingency - to address the risk of a growing gap between supply and demand. Based on recent figures, a minimum contingency of 30% should be applied to the total site allocation.

More details about Rep ID: 13218

Representation ID: 13154

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Welcome the Councils' recognition that it is prudent to allocate contingency sites. There is an existing shortfall in Babergh Mid Suffolk District Council's five year housing land supplies, and there appears to have been many factors that have resulted in this.

During the emerging Local Plan period, it is considered that there will be a number of sites which may come forward sooner, or indeed later, than set out in the proposed housing trajectory. In light of this we support HR1.

To avoid a lack of 5 year land supply, we would suggest a radical approach needs to be adopted, which would include a contingency of up to 50%.

More details about Rep ID: 13154

Representation ID: 12913

COMMENT Suffolk County Council (Mr. Robert Feakes)

Summary:

The suggestion of a contingency through reserve sites (question 8 and 10) would still require these sites to be tested through sustainability appraisal and for infrastructure capacity should all sites come forward for development by the end of the plan period. This approach can be used as a mechanism to promote delivery of a preferred approach such as the regeneration of brownfield sites or where there is clear evidence that a site achieves a greater level of benefit beyond the delivery of new homes or commercial floorspace than others. However, the county council would prefer the local plan to set a clear and deliverable strategy, providing certainty to prepare the necessary infrastructure and services.

If this approach were to be followed, the policies must clearly assign the "reserve" sites to circumstances when the "preferred" approach can no longer be followed. A concern is that rural settlements would be expected to accommodate further growth though reserve sites, which is likely to have very different impacts such as more trips made by car and over greater distances.

More details about Rep ID: 12913

Representation ID: 12851

COMMENT Tidal Hill Limited represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

A 20% contingency should be included in the Plan allocations with the lapse in the Council's five-year supply and recent undersupply representing the natural triggers for the release of reserve sites.

We would consider it sensible to allocate a range of easily delivered single-phase reserve sites to cater for at least an additional 20% further growth above and beyond the Plan's agreed total housing requirement. This would fall into line with both the buffer required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF to cater for persistent under delivery and that to be applied as the upper sanction as part of the Government's proposed 'Housing Delivery Test' (in instances where recent delivery falls below 85% of a Local Authority's annual requirement).

More details about Rep ID: 12851

Representation ID: 12831

OBJECT Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (Ms Laura Townes)

Summary:

The contingency should be at least 5% which would be consistent with the NPPF's requirement at page 47 to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

More details about Rep ID: 12831

Representation ID: 12743

COMMENT Building Partnerships Ltd. represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)

Summary:

Historic under delivery across the district provides support for Option HD1 - Option HD1 - Apply a contingency - to address the risk of a growing gap between supply and demand. Based on recent figures, a minimum contingency of 30% should be applied to the total site allocation.

More details about Rep ID: 12743

Representation ID: 12737

COMMENT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

o Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
Location of growth to be spread more pragmatically across Babergh rather than fewer large sites

More details about Rep ID: 12737

Representation ID: 12650

COMMENT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

Contingency sites need to be replacement and not additional, original sites need to be taken out of plan. There needs to be a regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and local need.

More details about Rep ID: 12650

Representation ID: 12580

COMMENT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 12580

Representation ID: 12537

COMMENT Llanover Estates represented by LRM Planning Ltd (michael rees)

Summary:

Given the shortfall in delivery to date, we are of the view that as a starting point there should be at least a 20% contingency. Therefore a pool of deliverable land that is 20% over the OAN level should be identified which would equate to around 4500 plus 20%.
Any reserve sites should be in addition to this pool of sites.

More details about Rep ID: 12537

Representation ID: 12459

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)

Summary:

We welcome the Councils' recognition that it is prudent to allocate contingency sites in order to provide a degree of certainty that the requirement will be met should the original allocations be substantively delayed or not progressed.

Both local authorities (Babergh Mid Suffolk) currently do not have a 5 year housing land supply. To avoid this in the future, we would suggest a radical approach needs to be adopted now, which would include a contingency of up to 50%.This would ensure that housing need is continuously met even when there are some allocated sites which are no longer deliverable.

More details about Rep ID: 12459

Representation ID: 12384

COMMENT Mr David Sylvester represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Kenny Durrant)

Summary:

The Councils' preferred option HD1 is considered to be the most robust. It is agreed that the allowance for contingency sites provides greater opportunity for the market to deliver housing on suitable sites. Such an approach will also assist in tackling the Districts' persistent lack of delivery in terms of housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12384

Representation ID: 12306

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Both local authorities (Babergh and Mid Suffolk) currently do not have a 5 year housing land supply. To avoid this in the future, we would suggest a radical approach needs to be adopted, which would include a contingency of up to 50%.This would ensure that housing need is continuously met even when there are some allocated sites which are no longer deliverable.

More details about Rep ID: 12306

Representation ID: 12304

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

We welcome the Councils' recognition that it is prudent to allocate contingency sites in order to provide a degree of certainty that the requirement will be met should the original allocations be substantively delayed or not progressed.

There is an existing shortfall of housing land supply in both Districts, and there appear to have been many factors that have resulted in this. It is considered that a number of sites which may come forward sooner, or indeed later, than set out in the proposed housing trajectory. In light of this, and to ensure a consistent supply of housing is provided, we support the Councils' initial preference of Option HR1 to apply a contingency through a reserved sites approach.

More details about Rep ID: 12304

Representation ID: 12288

COMMENT Anthony Villar represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr William Nichols)

Summary:

With regard to the comment provided under Question 7, option HD1 is considered to be the most robust. It is agreed that the allowance for contingency sites provides greater opportunity for the market to deliver housing on suitable sites. Such an approach will also assist in tackling the Districts' persistent lack of delivery in terms
of housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12288

Representation ID: 12251

COMMENT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)

Summary:

New DCLG methodology includes a 40% capped increase of 40% although the new OAN for Babergh is around 25% above the SHLAA because of a lower-than-average house prices to earnings ratio. DCLG housing numbers are stated to be a minimum and LPAs may plan for a level above the minimum, very limited ground for planning for lower growth. Given the increase is modest and adding a contingency is commonplace it is suggested a further 20% is added to the DCLG figure as a contingency, which raised the figure to 527 homes p.a. - residual requirements of 7,984 homes yet to allocate.

More details about Rep ID: 12251

Representation ID: 12223

COMMENT Marden Homes represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)

Summary:

Whilst we support the recognition of contingency sites in principle, we consider that this contingency should be for delivery above and beyond a proposed housing delivery that already accounts for a degree of flexibility and excess over the objectively assessed housing needs. In respect of the NPPF's guidance for Local Plans to meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adopt to rapid change, the proposed delivery should account for this required flexibility and then a contingency should be for exceptional and unprecedented levels of demand.

More details about Rep ID: 12223

Representation ID: 12190

SUPPORT The Greenwich Hospital represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr Paul Sutton)

Summary:

The Councils' preferred option HD1 is considered to be the most robust. We would agree that the application of a contingency allowance through the use of 'reserve sites' will provide greater opportunity for the market to deliver housing on suitable sites. Such an approach will also assist in tackling the Districts' persistent lack of delivery in terms of housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12190

Representation ID: 12154

COMMENT LRM Planning Ltd (michael rees)

Summary:

See attachment for full representation.

Given the shortfall in delivery to date, we are of the view that as a starting point there should be at least a 20% contingency. Therefore a pool of deliverable land that is 20% over the OAN level should be identified which would equate to around 4500 plus 20%.
Any reserve sites should be in addition to this pool of sites.

More details about Rep ID: 12154

Representation ID: 12133

COMMENT APT Philpot Ltd represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Richard Clews)

Summary:

The approach of allocating a range of contingency sites appears logical and capable of reflecting changes in circumstances. However, the plan should firstly seek to deliver at least the immediate housing need, and should identify as many suitable, sustainable sites throughout the districts to be appropriate for development as possible. This will ensure the Plan is capable of delivering, particularly in the early part of the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 12133

Representation ID: 12124

SUPPORT Mr Herbert Godbold, Ms Olive Godbold, Mr Stephen Baker and Diana Johnson represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Kenny Durrant)

Summary:

The Councils' preferred option HD1 is considered to be the most robust. It is agreed that the allowance for contingency sites provides greater opportunity for the market to deliver housing on suitable sites. Such an approach will also assist in tackling the Districts' persistent lack of delivery in terms of housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12124

Representation ID: 12098

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Important for OAN to be identified as a minimum and for sufficient land to be allocated to meet and, if possible, exceed this requirement. This will require a positive approach to the allocation of land, a suitable contingency of sites and flexible land use policies that will enable local planning authorities to respond to rapid change in circumstances during the plan period.

10-20% of permissions do not materialise into a start on site and that the permission 'drops out'. Multiple reasons are provided for this. It is recommended that the allocations within the Plan provide a clear contingency to ensure to increase the prospect of OAN being achieved in full over the plan period. Inspector for the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy found that the 10% reserve for housing sites should be increased to 20% to be NPPF compliant. Similar target is proposed to the emerging plan for Redcar and Cleveland.

More details about Rep ID: 12098

Representation ID: 12082

COMMENT Ms Rosemary Anne Welburn & Mr Robert Gordon Stiff represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Kenny Durrant)

Summary:

The Councils' preferred option HD1 is considered to be the most robust. It is agreed that the allowance for contingency sites provides greater opportunity for the market to deliver housing on suitable sites. Such an approach will also assist in tackling the Districts' persistent lack of delivery in terms of housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12082

Representation ID: 12073

COMMENT The Thornhill Settlement (John Davie-Thornhill) represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Melissa Reynolds)

Summary:

The Councils' preferred option HD1 is considered to be the most robust. We would agree that the application of a contingency allowance through the use of 'reserve sites' will provide greater opportunity for the market to deliver housing on suitable sites. Such an approach will also assist in tackling the Districts' persistent lack of delivery in terms of housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12073

Representation ID: 12051

COMMENT Montague Asset Management represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr William Nichols)

Summary:

With regard to the comment provided under Question 7, we believe that 'The Councils' preferred option HD1 is considered to be the most robust. The allowance for contingency sites provides greater opportunity for the market
to deliver housing on suitable sites whilst also assisting in tackling the Districts' persistent lack of delivery in terms
of housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12051

Representation ID: 12029

SUPPORT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

We support the identification of reserve sites. It is important that the Plan is flexible
enough to ensure that if annual monitoring indicates that housing delivery has
slipped, appropriate actions to rectify this will be immediately taken. The Plan needs
to be explicit about particular triggers which will result in specific actions. It is vital
that the measures are fully transparent. It would not be acceptable, for the Councils
to simply defer decisions to unspecified times in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 12029

Representation ID: 12012

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

In order to be positively prepared, the Joint Local Plan will need to meet its housing need in full. It should be possible to identify and allocate a range of sites which will help to meet the housing requirement on a rolling basis across the plan period. Other measures, including a plan strategy that places deliverability at its core, can help to ensure these sites come forward.

Inclusion of reserve sites may provide a useful source of additional housing land which will ensure the Local Plan has the flexibility to respond to a shortfall in housing supply, should one emerge.

More details about Rep ID: 12012

Representation ID: 11995

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

In order to be positively prepared, the Joint Local Plan will need to meet its housing need in full. It should be possible to identify and allocate a range of sites which will help to meet the housing requirement on a rolling basis across the plan period. Other measures, including a plan strategy that places deliverability at its core, can help to ensure these sites come forward.

Inclusion of reserve sites may provide a useful source of additional housing land which will ensure the Local Plan has the flexibility to respond to a shortfall in housing supply, should one emerge.

More details about Rep ID: 11995

Representation ID: 11896

COMMENT Turley (Mr Gareth Barton)

Summary:

We agree that it would not be appropriate to allocate sites only to meet the OAN housing requirement, and not allocate above this requirement. This is particularly important given the likely lead in times for larger allocated sites and continued issues with housing delivery. It would be therefore be prudent to allocate sites beyond the housing requirement identified.

Notwithstanding this, we would advocate increasing the overall housing requirement to ensure the Local Plan provides for future growth.

More details about Rep ID: 11896

Representation ID: 11815

COMMENT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

o Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.

Location of growth to be spread more pragmatically across Babergh rather than fewer large sites.

More details about Rep ID: 11815

Representation ID: 11758

OBJECT Amber REI represented by Pegasus Group (Mr David Onions)

Summary:

further recognition should be given within the emerging Local Plan that when either district falls into 5 year land supply deficiency, then housing sites should be brought forward as a matter of urgency. A policy setting out such an approach would be appropriate for the Local Plan. This policy should focus upon suitable locations based on the strategic settlement hierarchy, sites which provide clear benefits to the functional clusters and targeting previously developed land.

More details about Rep ID: 11758

Representation ID: 11756

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Contingency and Delivery
*Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
*Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 11756

Representation ID: 11660

COMMENT Haughley Park Consortium represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

We welcome the Council's recognition of the need to provide contingency sites and consider that contingency sites should come forward when the Councils are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

We would suggest that a contingency of 50% should be applied. This would ensure that there is a constantly supply of housing in the District to meet the housing need and would ensure that the Councils are able to continuously provide a 5 year housing land supply, as required by National Policy.

More details about Rep ID: 11660

Representation ID: 11629

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

We support the identification of reserve sites. It is important that the Plan is flexible enough to ensure that if annual monitoring indicates that housing delivery has slipped, appropriate actions to rectify this will be immediately taken. The Plan needs to be explicit about particular triggers which will result in specific actions. It is vital that the measures are fully transparent. It would not be acceptable, for the Councils to simply defer decisions to unspecified times in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 11629

Representation ID: 11539

COMMENT Annette Powell

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 11539

Representation ID: 11398

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

None. Babergh does not have the luxury of sites with limited environmental impacts and readily available infrastructure to permit it to plan for more than meeting its housing requirement.

More details about Rep ID: 11398

Representation ID: 11363

COMMENT Greater London Authority (Juliemma McLoughlin)

Summary:

We welcome the Council's commitment to meeting its housing need in full including a reserve-site approach as contingency.

More details about Rep ID: 11363

Representation ID: 11322

COMMENT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 11322

Representation ID: 11216

OBJECT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

No contingency should be applied. This is likely to result in an over allocation of large sites at the expense of brownfield and infill sites, and hence unnecessary development in the countryside. This is double so if the allowance in the calculation for windfall continues to be under-estimated.

More details about Rep ID: 11216

Representation ID: 11164

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

There is a need for some contingency in order to protect against loss of the 5 year supply and therefore not allowing unplanned growth in unsuitable areas.

More details about Rep ID: 11164

Representation ID: 11113

COMMENT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Support Option HD2. The Council does not see the need to apply a contingency through a reserved sites approach. This is based upon the fact that there have been a number of housing developments in Rattlesden over the last few years and further ones risk placing undue strain on the village infrastructure, in particular through increased road traffic and the very real and risk of serious flooding.

More details about Rep ID: 11113

Representation ID: 10902

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

A contingency provides flexibility to accommodate timing and development fluctuations

More details about Rep ID: 10902

Representation ID: 10808

COMMENT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10808

Representation ID: 10760

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

We are preparing to revise the Mendlesham Neighbourhood Plan to allocate three sites in order of priority. If the prime site fails to deliver we would then proceed with the second prioritised site, which would replace the initial prime site.

More details about Rep ID: 10760

Representation ID: 10610

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10610

Representation ID: 10606

COMMENT Harrow Estates (Miss Cindy Wan)

Summary:

Option HD1 should be pursued and a contingency applied. A 20% contingency, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework, would provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

More details about Rep ID: 10606

Representation ID: 10564

COMMENT Hopkins Homes Ltd represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

A 20% contingency should be included in the Plan allocations with the lapse in the Council's five-year supply or recent undersupply representing the natural triggers for the release of reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10564

Representation ID: 10552

COMMENT Countryside Properties (Mrs Emma Woods)

Summary:

Countryside supports the principal of providing contingency through the allocation of additional reserve sites, this is in conformity with the NPPF requirement for plans to be flexible and deal with changing circumstances. In determining the quantum of provision to provide it is worth noting the recommendations from the report to Government of the Local Plan Expert Group, which recommended the provision of 20% of such sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10552

Representation ID: 10517

COMMENT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10517

Representation ID: 10411

COMMENT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10411

Representation ID: 10237

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Both local authorities (Babergh and Mid Suffolk) currently do not have a 5 year housing land supply. To avoid this in the future, we would suggest a radical approach needs to be adopted, which would include a contingency of up to 50%.This would ensure that housing need is continuously met even when there are some allocated sites which are no longer deliverable.

More details about Rep ID: 10237

Representation ID: 10059

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

Planning for an overprovision of housing through the site allocation process may
reduce the ability for certain sites to be justified in the Plan where there may be
impacts upon the historic environment. If a site is being considered which could
impact upon the historic environment then provisions should be written into specific
policies to ensure its conservation, however if development could be accommodated
elsewhere without comprising the ability of the Council to meet its Objectively
Assessed Need it raises questions as to whether the site should be considered at all
if sites more appropriate for development exist elsewhere.

More details about Rep ID: 10059

Representation ID: 9983

COMMENT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 9983

Representation ID: 9844

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

This question talks of allocating sites - how will this be done? There will need to be local public consultation on draft allocation proposals including contingencies.

More details about Rep ID: 9844

Representation ID: 9809

COMMENT Merton College, Oxford represented by Savills (Mr James Yeoman)

Summary:

In respect of Options HD1 and HD2 regarding any contingency, it is recommended that OAN first accounts for any increases set out as part of the Government's proposed standard methodology. Specific comment on any proposed contingency will be made in due course at later stages of public consultation to the Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 9809

Representation ID: 9694

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

This would be dependent upon the area in question. In some environments there will be greater capacity than others. For the core villages such as Debenham there are a very limited number of sites for development given the historic core village, the comparatively new developments and the current infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 9694

Representation ID: 9636

COMMENT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 9636

Representation ID: 9516

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

As already mentioned HD2 has no contingency.

More details about Rep ID: 9516

Representation ID: 9424

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Some level of contingency, by having reserve sites, is preferable so that if growth exceeds expectation, there is no loss of 5 year supply, resulting in unplanned growth in unsuitable areas.

More details about Rep ID: 9424

Representation ID: 9331

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

Q8: Contingency
It makes sense in a plan that is expected to span such a considerable period of time for there to be some contingency provision against identified sites that cannot, for whatever reason, be developed within the specified time. In such circumstances, the activation of a contingency site should permanently remove the original intended site from the plan. In other words, each contingency activated should be a replacement within the plan for an original site that could not be developed as planned, NOT an additional site for development.

More details about Rep ID: 9331

Representation ID: 9323

COMMENT J W Baldwin Farms represented by Pegasus Group (Mr Robert Barber)

Summary:

It is appropriate to allocate reserve sites as a contingency measure.

More details about Rep ID: 9323

Representation ID: 9251

COMMENT W H Jardine represented by Phase 2 Planning & Development Ltd (Mr Kevin Coleman)

Summary:

We support the option of identifying reserve or contingency sites as a means of ensuring that the strategy is as robust as possible.
A contingency of 20% would be consistent with 5 year land supply/housing delivery test methodology, and would provide a reasonable buffer to counteract short-term under-delivery.
Clearly it would be essential that any contingency sites allocated are demonstrably capable of delivery.
The Local Plan monitoring policy can include relevant factors to be taken in to account when considering whether or not reserve sites should be granted, but it is not necessarily the case that a specific formula or precise set of circumstances need be enshrined in policy for such a mechanism to work. Whilst certainty as to circumstances is helpful, and would avoid abortive application costs, it is not unreasonable for the local planning authority to consider applications on reserve/contingency sites having regard to all material considerations at that time.

More details about Rep ID: 9251

Representation ID: 9233

COMMENT The Gooderham Family and ESCO Developments Ltd represented by Cheffins Planning & Development (Mr Jon Jennings)

Summary:

Due to the extremely slow delivery of housing on allocated sites it is recommended that a 20% contingency is applied. This will ensure variety and choice in the housing market and ensure that a range of sites are available early in the plan process. The lack of progress with regards to existing allocations and the existing shortfalls in housing land supply emphasises the need for variety in the scale and location of sites identified.

More details about Rep ID: 9233

Representation ID: 9185

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

It makes sense in a plan that is expected to span such a considerable period of time for there to be some contingency provision against identified sites that cannot, for whatever reason, be developed within the specified time. In such circumstances, the activation of a contingency site should permanently remove the original intended site from the plan. In other words, each contingency activated should be a replacement within the plan for an original site that could not be developed as planned, NOT an additional site for development.

More details about Rep ID: 9185

Representation ID: 9143

COMMENT Mr Bay Knowles represented by Keymer Cavendish Limited (Mr Edward Keymer)

Summary:

Suggest 10% contingency and historic shortfall made up in early years.

More details about Rep ID: 9143

Representation ID: 8990

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Allocation of sites appears to have fallen into a feeding frenzy from developers due to the lack of a 5 year plan, creating disproportionate development to infrastructure. Allocation needs to focus on main areas of desired development, following consideration and development of infrastructure to support additional housing.
A number of sites in the Stowmarket were previously identified for development such as 'Ashes farm' but rather than this area e focused on reserve sites appears to be allocated in response to developer demand rather than community demand. The council needs to be clear around the priority of the locations for development.

More details about Rep ID: 8990

Representation ID: 8946

COMMENT Andrew Searle

Summary:

Contingency only in areas where likely to need extra sites.

More details about Rep ID: 8946

Representation ID: 8739

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Contingency is a wise thing to have, but needs to be spatially linked to anticipated areas of employment, rather than chosen solely because land is available

More details about Rep ID: 8739

Representation ID: 8521

COMMENT Mr David Pettitt represented by Keymer Cavendish Limited (Philippa Hull)

Summary:

Suggest 10% contingency and historic shortfall made up in early years

More details about Rep ID: 8521

Representation ID: 8255

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

While the purpose of the contingency site list should be to ensure that there is always an adequate 5-year land supply, release of contingency sites should not be based on the fluctuation of completions in a single year.
If it is demonstrated through the Annual Monitoring Report that annual housing completions over a consecutive three year period are 15% below the annualised housing requirement or the Council is unable to achieve a five year housing land supply, the Council will release a site (or sites) from the list of contingency sites in order to increase the housing land supply.
It is further recommended that the sites released should have regard to the sites where housing is known to be required;
As contingency sites are used the should be replaced.

More details about Rep ID: 8255

Representation ID: 7970

COMMENT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

We do not think the case for applying contingency has been made. The failure to deliver housing requires measures from central government to ensure developers implement extant consents rather than local councils allocating more greenfield sites for development.

More details about Rep ID: 7970

Representation ID: 7882

OBJECT Mr David Watts

Summary:

None. Allocating sites as contingency blights the prospects of local residents selling their houses if they will be adversely affected by them.

More details about Rep ID: 7882

Representation ID: 7593

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Given plan duration there is a need for flexibility and therefore contingency - particularly with respect to sites that are allocated but fail to deliver development. In such circumstances, alternative sites should be allocated IN PLACE OF (i.e. not in addition to) the originally allocated site.

More details about Rep ID: 7593

Representation ID: 7334

OBJECT Mrs Gillian West

Summary:

If OAN figures are reliable and local need is "employment led", as per LDP intention, then a coherent plan should have such growth factored into it. A contingency leaves sites open to having developments 'dumped' on them if/when BDC falls below its strategic housing reserve 5-year target thus allowing wholly inappropriate developments to be imposed on areas against the wishes and of inhabitants & the ability of local infrastructure to cope with large & unplanned influxes.

More details about Rep ID: 7334

Representation ID: 7322

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Given plan duration there is a need for flexibility and therefore contingency - particularly with respect to sites that are allocated but fail to deliver development. In such circumstances, alternative sites should be allocated IN PLACE OF (i.e. not in addition to) the originally allocated site.

More details about Rep ID: 7322

Representation ID: 7305

COMMENT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

Nil - it restricts organic growth and limits the opportunity for communities to take charge of their own development and allow communities to benefit from development of their own area. Equally reserve sites will cause 20 years of uncertainty, stress and depressed housing market for those living nearby.

More details about Rep ID: 7305

Representation ID: 7169

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Contingency shouldn't be applied. If one site cannot be developed it could be replaced by another site - this site should not be regarded as additional.

More details about Rep ID: 7169

Representation ID: 7139

OBJECT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

Activating a contingency plan should mean that sites already in planning should be replaced not added to.

More details about Rep ID: 7139

Representation ID: 7020

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

Must be suitable and sensitive to environ to avoid over development.

More details about Rep ID: 7020

Representation ID: 6901

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

There is a presumption that what is planned and what is delivered is the issue with the understanding that there will be a need to accrue sites to give a cushion - i.e. a topping up of sites. However there is a concern as to how this is to be applied and a need for such growth to be spread out. A regular review taking into account deliverability and build out rates must be ensured.

More details about Rep ID: 6901

Representation ID: 6872

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

I think all housing should be planned within the identified numbers. Contingency sites could lead to urban sprawl.

More details about Rep ID: 6872

Representation ID: 6842

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

I do not believe this appropriate as windfall is likely to come forward, sometimes in the form of new applications from the sites rejected in the JLP.
But if this does happen no site should come forward from the reserve unless a failing/delayed site is withdrawn from the plan, and at like for like housing quantities. Otherwise this could become a back door for un-required housing

More details about Rep ID: 6842

Representation ID: 6815

COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)

Summary:

The issue of contingency is difficult in relation to consideration of "sites". The size of sites assessed in the SHELAA was frequently in excess of the proposed yield, and so by accepting a site, but proposing only partial development, the remaining land could be considered a reserved site, but this would not need a contingency in the manner described. Can we create a limit to 'windfall' sites? If contingency is all just about windfall sites (which is referenced in the doc as an option) it is open season to just chuck in anything anywhere and claim "windfall".

More details about Rep ID: 6815

Representation ID: 6339

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q8 Identifying contingency reserve sites could result in speculation with a negative effect on land use, such as productive land not being cultivated. It is probably a good thing for the environment that land is left fallow, but then if species colonise it and it is subsequently developed there is no long term gain for the environment.

More details about Rep ID: 6339

Representation ID: 6309

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

The scale of contingency should be a consistent figure across Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 6309

Representation ID: 6277

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

N/A

More details about Rep ID: 6277

Representation ID: 6265

OBJECT Webb & Son (Combs) Ltd represented by Carter Jonas (Ben Ward)

Summary:

The "reserve sites" approach is not justifiable in light of national planning policy. If the Council is not confident that the allocated sites will deliver to meet the OAN, then more allocations should be made to compensate for the uncertainty.

More details about Rep ID: 6265

Representation ID: 6178

COMMENT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

The planning authority is best placed to determine the proportion of contingency sites. The capacity of these sites should be enough to meet the need but not so great as to create a high level of uncertainty around which sites will be developed. Presumably the sites can be updated as the plan is periodically reviewed over its life and so the contingency sites allocated at the outset can be modest.
I strongly disagree with the comment submitted on behalf of Endurance Estates which seeks to undermine the whole concept of identifying preferred development sites.

More details about Rep ID: 6178

Representation ID: 6153

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Contingency required in order to substitute for "stuck" sites. Within the Babergh area there are significant numbers of sites that have benefit of planning permission but there is little progress in developers building on those sites. If contingency sites are to be provided, they should be seen as replacements for "stuck" sites and not as additional to them. Regular review of demand is required in order to monitor supply and provision of housing on sites with the benefit of planning permission. The regular review should use the guiding principles of right type, right tenure, right place and local need.

More details about Rep ID: 6153

Representation ID: 6029

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* Current 'stuck' sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.

* Contingency sites to be replacement and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local) - should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 6029

Representation ID: 6022

OBJECT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

We do not support the proposed inclusion of contingency sites. The key objective should be to increase delivery and this will not be served by having a list of sites to be introduced if delivery on other sites is slow. To give maximum flexibility and certainty for investors and builders, all suitable sites should be allocated from the start of the plan period and allow the market to determine capacity to deliver.

More details about Rep ID: 6022

Representation ID: 5832

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

HD2 is preferred together with a strengthened strategy to ensure rapid delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 5832

Representation ID: 5826

OBJECT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Allocation of sites appears to have fallen into a feeding frenzy from developers due to the lack of a 5 year plan, creating disproportionate development to infrastructure. Allocation of sites needs to focus on the main areas of desired development, following consideration and development of infrastructure to support additional housing.
Stowmarket sites were previously identified for development such as 'Ashes farm' but rather than this area focused on reserve sites appears to be allocated in response to developer demand rather than community demand. The council needs to be clear around the priority of the locations for development.

More details about Rep ID: 5826

Representation ID: 5819

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes there should be NO contingency applied.

More details about Rep ID: 5819

Representation ID: 5767

OBJECT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

Zero contingency. There must be room allowed for natural, small, organic growth elsewhere within settlement boundaries so well provided by windfall sites. Housing development should not be overtly reliant upon a small number of large, pre-allocated sites.

More details about Rep ID: 5767

Representation ID: 5543

COMMENT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

No, apply zero contingency, local plans need to be tight to keep development to an acceptable level. Existing infrastructure is already over stretched and is unlikely to be improved in line with required development, let alone any additional contingency development.

More details about Rep ID: 5543

Representation ID: 5540

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

HD1 (contingency)
Each contingency activated should be a replacement within the plan ( given that it covers such a long period) for an original site that has not or could not be developed for whatever reason. The original site could then be removed from the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 5540

Representation ID: 5443

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council believes no contingency will be needed if the housing requirement is evidence based.

More details about Rep ID: 5443

Representation ID: 5198

COMMENT Mr Terence Gray

Summary:

None see HD1

More details about Rep ID: 5198

Representation ID: 5099

COMMENT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

Agreement was reached that there should be a contingency but no figure was recommended.

More details about Rep ID: 5099

Representation ID: 5061

COMMENT Suffolk Housing Society represented by Ingleton Wood LLP (Miss Nicol Perryman)

Summary:

Due to the consistent shortfall in recent years on the basis of current allocations, it would seem appropriate to apply a contingency. This would allow the Councils to ensure well co-ordinated development throughout the Districts.

More details about Rep ID: 5061

Representation ID: 4951

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

We would support the approach in HD1

More details about Rep ID: 4951

Representation ID: 4939

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

No Contingency. Allows the planning authority 'Carte Blanche' to pass planning applications whenever they arise and also takes the pressure off enforcement of planning applications already agreed.

More details about Rep ID: 4939

Representation ID: 4885

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

A contingency of at least 10% should be allowed. This will need to be greater if developments are delayed after planning is approved.

More details about Rep ID: 4885

Representation ID: 4584

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

This is not a preferred option. No contingency should be applied

More details about Rep ID: 4584

Representation ID: 4556

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Until Q7 above is amplified, answered and digested: contingency numbers cannot be computed.

More details about Rep ID: 4556

Representation ID: 4478

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

Until Q7 above is amplified, answered and digested: contingency numbers cannot be computed.

More details about Rep ID: 4478

Representation ID: 4467

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The Parish Council considers that HD2 was the best option because no contingency is required. Previously Babergh has overestimated the housing need. The forecasts for housing need should be kept under regular review.

More details about Rep ID: 4467

Representation ID: 4325

OBJECT Mrs Stacey Achour

Summary:

you cant plan that far ahead effectively so do not have a contingency.

More details about Rep ID: 4325

Representation ID: 4182

OBJECT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

This question talks of allocating sites - how will this be done? Will people be consulted on draft allocation proposals including contingencies?

More details about Rep ID: 4182

Representation ID: 4120

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

HD2

More details about Rep ID: 4120

Representation ID: 4005

COMMENT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

* Current sites with permissions but where no building work has started, suggests the need for a contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Use of 'Contingency' sites MUST be replacement and not additional; original sites must be taken out of plan. A regular review of demand MUST check the guiding requirements of type, tenure, place and need (local), and this should trigger the need for reserve sites to be brought forward.

More details about Rep ID: 4005

Representation ID: 3836

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

None - make the plan, allocate appropriate sites and implement. A 20 year plan will not be accurate, planning a contingency for this wold be bizarre.

More details about Rep ID: 3836

Representation ID: 3767

COMMENT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

* Current sites with permissions but where no building work has started, suggests the need for a contingency going forward - replace 'stuck' sites with others.
* Use of 'Contingency' sites MUST be replacement and not additional; original sites must be taken out of plan. A regular review of demand MUST check the guiding requirements of type, tenure, place and need (local), and this should trigger the need for reserve sites to be brought forward.

More details about Rep ID: 3767

Representation ID: 3748

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Sites with planning consent in area have not been started by builders suggesting there is no call for further development therefore the number stated require if over stated
Allocation of developments to be shared proportionately.

More details about Rep ID: 3748

Representation ID: 3649

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Option HD2 - No contingency. With allocation of sites equitably throughout the whole District.

More details about Rep ID: 3649

Representation ID: 3627

COMMENT Dr John Webb

Summary:

Planning for 20 years ahead is fine in principle, but housing requirements go down as well as up. Are contingency sites to replace existing planned sites which for some reason are not available? In whcih case the unavailable sites should be taken off the list.

More details about Rep ID: 3627

Representation ID: 3406

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

It makes sense in a plan that is expected to span such a considerable period of time for there to be some contingency provision against identified sites that cannot, for whatever reason, be developed within the specified time. In such circumstances, the activation of a contingency site should permanently remove the original intended site from the plan. In other words, each contingency activated should be a replacement within the plan for an original site that could not be developed as planned, NOT an additional site for development.

More details about Rep ID: 3406

Representation ID: 2848

COMMENT Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson)

Summary:

Sufficient contingency should be allocated to prevent the adverse consequences of the current lack of a five year housing land supply reoccurring before the next review is completed.

More details about Rep ID: 2848

Representation ID: 2804

COMMENT Mr Simon Wood

Summary:

As stated previously. A percentage of existing houses within any one village should be granted permission.
You should not be allowed to double, treble, quadruple or worse to number of houses within an established settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 2804

Representation ID: 2557

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish offers no response as it believes this question has no relevance to the village.

More details about Rep ID: 2557

Representation ID: 2483

OBJECT Mr Brian HUNT

Summary:

Other sites with planning consent in area have not been started by builders suggesting there is no call for further development .Allocation of developments to be shared proportionately.

More details about Rep ID: 2483

Representation ID: 2449

OBJECT Mrs Carol Ingleson

Summary:

Dont think there should be a contingency as you are risking more houses being built that is wanted or needed.

More details about Rep ID: 2449

Representation ID: 2416

COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

HD2 - no contingency. Option HD1 to apply a contingency may work on a "top down" exercise for Babergh but it leaves local small communities at risk of having to accept more housing on a plot than their local community feels that they can support in terms of infrastructure and also change the feel of a rural hamlet quite significantly.

More details about Rep ID: 2416

Representation ID: 2362

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

Less than 10% isn't worthwhile, more implies a lack of confidence in the estimate. Efforts should be made to develop brownfield sites especially in the main population areas.

More details about Rep ID: 2362

Representation ID: 2361

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

It is our view that HD2 is the most satisfactory approach. As already stated there appears to be a sufficient number of houses identified to ensure the need is met and there may well be a surplus. Should a contingency be applied then the lack of detail in the Consultation document creates a degree of unease as to how this will be applied. How will those developments identified as contingent be allocated to the plan in due course? Will those on the contingency list for one year be automatically 'brought forward' to substantive development the following year.

More details about Rep ID: 2361

Representation ID: 2128

COMMENT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

We have no view on this, but no greater than 5% seems acceptable, given the potential of windfall developments.

More details about Rep ID: 2128

Representation ID: 2038

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

Need modest contingencies to mop up the problems similar to what we have encountered with the lack of 5 yr land supply

More details about Rep ID: 2038

Representation ID: 1963

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

From the information provided it would not appear that a contingency needs to be applied

More details about Rep ID: 1963

Representation ID: 1903

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Sufficient contingency should be allocated to prevent the adverse consequences of the current lack of a five year housing land supply reoccurring before the next review.

More details about Rep ID: 1903

Representation ID: 1799

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

For reasons stated in response to HD2 do not apply contingency

More details about Rep ID: 1799

Representation ID: 1733

OBJECT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

For reasons stated in response to H2 do not apply contingency

More details about Rep ID: 1733

Representation ID: 1692

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

The proportion of the contingency should relate to the recent historical percentage difference between the planned for totals and those actually achieved

More details about Rep ID: 1692

Representation ID: 1645

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Sufficient contingency should be allocated to prevent the adverse consequences of the current lack of a five year housing land supply.

More details about Rep ID: 1645

Representation ID: 1536

COMMENT Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt

Summary:

Not more than 5% and to be reviewed as windfall and infill developments are permitted

More details about Rep ID: 1536

Representation ID: 1516

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

Housing should be spread over all civil parishes but in the smaller communities 0.25 ha may be too large for a modest development more suitable for the size of the community.

More details about Rep ID: 1516

Representation ID: 1447

COMMENT Barton Willmore Planning P'ship (Mr. Paul Foster)

Summary:

We consider that it would be prudent to allocate 20% of the housing identified in the allocated sites as reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 1447

Representation ID: 1387

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

5%. An arbitrary figure

More details about Rep ID: 1387

Representation ID: 1225

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

A 10% contingency on top of identified sites and windfall prospects should be adequate to meet the potential for sites not proceeding.

More details about Rep ID: 1225

Representation ID: 1207

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I consider that Option HD2 is preferable. Allocations should take account of windfalls but not go beyond the housing requirement. This would ensure that the sites brought forward are those that most closely align with the sustainable locations and phasing of the Plan strategy, rather than those which may be "easier" to develop. It avoids "cherry picking" of sites that may give a quicker, higher return, require less upfront infrastructure, including schools or community facilities, on brownfield sites or where site assembly is required.

More details about Rep ID: 1207

Representation ID: 1079

OBJECT Simon Bell

Summary:

The Council should not allocate contingency sites because this sets the level of housing sites above the objectively assessed Housing Need (OAN).

in addition, there is no objective assessment set out of how the contingency will be set.

More details about Rep ID: 1079

Representation ID: 1012

SUPPORT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Include all currently documented reserve sites as teh contingency so that full potential is known up front.

More details about Rep ID: 1012

Representation ID: 960

SUPPORT Mr. Gerald Battye

Summary:

The views of village Parish Councils should always be sought. They provide the local view whereas the Local Planning Authority is District wide. The local Council know what can be accommodated within the Settlement Boundaries or abutting

More details about Rep ID: 960

Representation ID: 934

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Proportionate Growth to all settlements/ villages

More details about Rep ID: 934

Representation ID: 791

OBJECT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)

Summary:

As we believe that the target is too high we do not need a contingency, particularly as wind fall houses( which are not factored in will provide a natural contingency.

More details about Rep ID: 791

Representation ID: 525

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC considers there needs to be an overall plan that is consistent with MSDC stated planning objectives rather than the council just having to accept the proposals of landowners and builders.

More details about Rep ID: 525

Representation ID: 167

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

None

More details about Rep ID: 167

Representation ID: 107

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

The first priority must be to regenerate town centres through brown-site development and secondly to support the views of parish councils in rural areas to develop villages according to local wishes.

More details about Rep ID: 107

Representation ID: 71

COMMENT J. E. Knock & Partners (Mr. Chris Knock)

Summary:

At least 10%

More details about Rep ID: 71

Representation ID: 61

OBJECT mr stephen edevane

Summary:

20%

More details about Rep ID: 61

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult