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) - Q22

Representation ID: 13170

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

Summary:

We consider that the Councils' affordable housing provision should be up to 35%. This would be a suitable starting point, however, we also consider that the Councils should clearly state that affordable housing contributions should be met only where possible and where viable.

More details about Rep ID: 13170

Representation ID: 12934

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

The draft plan proposes the total need for affordable housing is just 19.4%.
I believe a higher percentage of low cost market housing is required in order to maintain balanced communities that are sustainable in the longer term.

More details about Rep ID: 12934

Representation ID: 12805

COMMENT East Bergholt Parish Council (Valerie Ayton)

Summary:

Local need assessment surveys show local need in EBNP to be in the region of 25/86 houses, that is nearer to 30%, not 19.4%. Babergh claims to have actually delivered 23% in recent years, but in EBNP area and hinterland this reduces to about 2%.
Local people just cannot afford to buy the new homes in the area covered by our EBNP. We need to build homes they can afford to maintain our nalanced community - hence the Community Land Trust project.
Current Babergh policy 35% affordable homes as part of market developments and Babergh delivered 23% in past 5 years. Implication of not addressing the housing type built is that this the plan will lead to an unbalanced community of older well off population at the expense of younger people and families, which in itself may be unsustainable?

More details about Rep ID: 12805

Representation ID: 12593

COMMENT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
* The total need for affordable house suggested is 19.4%. This is a drop from the previous policy of 35% in the face of a 71% local increase in private rentals, an increase in single parents looking for homes and an increase in local financial deprivation. That just doesn't stack up.
BDC only achieved 23% affordable housing which probably was the consequence of viability arguments from developers. Similar arguments against a 20% requirement would bring deliverability down to about 13%. Starter homes should be included.

More details about Rep ID: 12593

Representation ID: 12543

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

Summary:

Paragraph 7.26 of the SHMA (part 2) 2017, indicates that the requirement for Mid Suffolk is 12% of Housing to be Affordable Rented and 10% Affordable home ownership (comprising 5% shared ownership and 5% starter homes). As such, it seems that in respect of Mid Suffolk the % should be 22%.
We note that consideration should be given to the threshold for affordable housing and other contributions as many small sites are brought forward without contributing towards affordable housing or other impacts. It is the case that larger sites (over 10 units) will be better placed to ensure that adverse impacts are mitigated appropriately and maintain viability. Indeed, reliance upon windfall sites is likely to mean that population increases and pressure on facilities without mitigation.

More details about Rep ID: 12543

Representation ID: 12484

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

Summary:

We consider that the Councils' affordable housing provision should be up to 35%. This would be a suitable starting point, however, we also consider that the Councils should clearly state that affordable housing contributions should be met only where possible and where viable.

More details about Rep ID: 12484

Representation ID: 12391

SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 12391

Representation ID: 12327

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

Summary:

We consider that the Councils' affordable housing provision should be up to 35%. This would be a suitable starting point, however, we also consider that the Councils should clearly state that affordable housing contributions should be met only where possible and where viable.

More details about Rep ID: 12327

Representation ID: 12107

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Essential the emerging Plan is the subject of an assessment of whole plan viability. This will reflect all of the policy choices that are being made and carefully consider any associated impact on viability and deliverability. Should include the re-assessment of the affordable housing target. A number of affordable housing percentage targets should be tested through the Sustainability Appraisal that accompanies the plan, it is likely that there will be a number of reasonable alternatives that will have differing impacts upon the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Consideration will also need to be given to whether there should be a further uplift to the housing requirement to support further affordable housing delivery over the plan period in a manner that may be justified against wider need.

More details about Rep ID: 12107

Representation ID: 12060

COMMENT Heathpatch Limited represented by Wincer Kievenaar Architects Limited, (Mr Craig Western)

Summary:

As noted above, this response supports the provision of affordable housing, and
achieving the right mix of housing types to meet need in the area. HP is already a
local landlord and would propose to retain dwellings for both affordable rent and
market rent.

More details about Rep ID: 12060

Representation ID: 12016

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

The SHMA identifies affordable housing need figures of 19.4% of the total objectively assessed need in Babergh and 17.4% of the total objectively assessed need in Mid Suffolk. Given the evidence that the Councils have commissioned and been presented with in the SHMA it is unclear as to why Joint Local Plan would promote a figure of 35% affordable housing.

More details about Rep ID: 12016

Representation ID: 11999

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

The SHMA identifies affordable housing need figures of 19.4% of the total objectively assessed need in Babergh and 17.4% of the total objectively assessed need in Mid Suffolk. Given the evidence that the Councils have commissioned and been presented with in the SHMA it is unclear as to why Joint Local Plan would promote a figure of 35% affordable housing.

More details about Rep ID: 11999

Representation ID: 11779

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Affordable housing
*We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
*The total need for affordable house suggested is 19.4%. This is a drop from the previous policy of 35% in the face of a 71% local increase in private rentals (i.e. homes being bought up and rented to people who can't afford to buy a home), an increase in single parents looking for homes and an increase in local financial deprivation. That just doesn't stack up.

More details about Rep ID: 11779

Representation ID: 11686

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

No, I consider the requirement for affordable homes should remain at the current 35%.

More details about Rep ID: 11686

Representation ID: 11670

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

Summary:

We would agree with the proposed affordable housing provision requirements, which should be seen as an "up to" figure. In compliance with Government guidance, affordable housing provision should be met where viable.

More details about Rep ID: 11670

Representation ID: 11638

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

Summary:

With regard as to whether the requirement for affordable housing should be set at a percentage other than the current 35%, the Councils' own evidence clearly demonstrates that it should be. The latest SHMA has identified Babergh's affordable housing need as being 19.4% and Mid Suffolk's need as 17.4%. It would be totally contrary to the CIL regulations) for the Councils to seek a level of provision that is twice as high as their own evidence shows is needed.

Councils will need to be very careful to ensure that they act in a flexible manner and avoid introducing unreasonable development costs that could threaten required housing delivery rates being achieved.

More details about Rep ID: 11638

Representation ID: 11602

COMMENT South Suffolk Constituency Labour Party (Ms Emma Bishton)

Summary:

The Council should continue to set the requirement for affordable
housing at 35%.

More details about Rep ID: 11602

Representation ID: 11550

COMMENT Annette Powell

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
There is not a reduction in affordable housing need, there is an increase, that is nationally recognised fact, and BMSDC need to enforce the standing policy of 35% more robustly to achieve that.
If the requirement was reduced to 20%, developers will be likely to make the same arguments for similar reductions bring the deliverable supply down to about 13%.
Starter homes should also be added into this mix.

More details about Rep ID: 11550

Representation ID: 11499

OBJECT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )

Summary:

No - A percentage of 35% should be maintained in order to ensure both that the viability of the development and that the design and build standards of affordable housing are not compromised.

More details about Rep ID: 11499

Representation ID: 11420

COMMENT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

No objection to 35%, if that is what the evidence establishes as a requirement.

More details about Rep ID: 11420

Representation ID: 11336

COMMENT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
* BDC under the last Local Plan only achieved 23% affordable housing which probably was the consequence of viability arguments from developers. Perhaps the proposal to reduce this to a 20% requirement is intended to make the target achievable?
* There is not a reduction in affordable housing need, there is an increase, that is a nationally recognised fact, and BMSDC need to enforce the standing policy of 35% more robustly to achieve that.
* This could be improved by apply the policy to developments of three or more homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes.
* Starter homes should also be added into this mix. Sold at a discount of at least 20% below market value with a maximum sale cost of £180,000 (or a maximum of 3 times joint income if average salaries are at £27,600 with a £15,000 deposit - prudential lending limits) exclusively to first time buyers these are the type of homes the local community needs.

More details about Rep ID: 11336

Representation ID: 11296

COMMENT The Lavenham Society (Jane Gosling)

Summary:

We would support Lavenham Parish Council's suggestion that the formation of a Local Housing Company is the best way forward to facilitate the need for locally rented property.
With regard to affordable housing, the Lavenham Society believes that the current prescribed 35% is the correct level, but that this must be enforced with every development and not used as a 'starting point' for negotiations with developers. One-bedroomed properties should be avoided in favour of more 2-3 bedroomed accommodation.

More details about Rep ID: 11296

Representation ID: 11097

COMMENT Catesby Estates Limited represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Jen Carroll)

Summary:

We are supportive of the proposal to maintain the current affordable percentage at 35%. It is however important the policy is viable and sufficiently flexible such that it is not overly burdensome (paragraph 173). Any policy setting out affordable housing need should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions (paragraph 50 of the NPPF).

More details about Rep ID: 11097

Representation ID: 11012

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that the current requirement of 35% should remain.

More details about Rep ID: 11012

Representation ID: 10982

COMMENT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

Original research data has not been supplied to support the affordable housing need of 19.4%. BAPTC believes a higher percentage of low cost market housing is required. The Districts need homes that are affordable for young couples and families, achieved through housing associations, parish trusts, councils and private sector on larger schemes.

Against a previous demand of 35% BDC only achieved 23%. Therefore, for a 20% requirement we might only expect 13% delivery which is a fraction of what is required. Clear that the JLP needs to give greater consideration to the delivery of truly affordable homes. Councils should be fully account for deviations from NPPF or quota guidelines.

Local communities can have an essential role in determining affordable housing need. Neighbourhood Plans are one mechanism.

More details about Rep ID: 10982

Representation ID: 10917

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

The SHMA vol.2 para.7.10 proposes 25.1% which seems reasonable but the affordable housing should be delivered physically and not settled by way of payment to the local authority.

More details about Rep ID: 10917

Representation ID: 10859

COMMENT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* support retention of 35% affordable housing target, but should be more robustly enforced.
* total need for affordable house suggested is 19.4%. This is a drop from previous policy of 35% in face of 71% increase in private rentals.
* under the last Local Plan only achieved 23% affordable housing which was the consequence of viability arguments from developers. Perhaps proposal to reduce to 20% requirement is intended to make target achievable?
* There is not reduction in affordable housing need, there is increase, that is recognised fact, BMSDC need to enforce standing policy of 35% robustly to achieve.

More details about Rep ID: 10859

Representation ID: 10787

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 10787

Representation ID: 10645

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
* The total need for affordable house suggested is 19.4%. This is a drop from the previous policy of 35% in the face of a 71% local increase in private rentals (i.e. homes being bought up and rented to people who can't afford to buy a home), an increase in single parents looking for homes and an increase in local financial deprivation. That just doesn't stack up.
* BDC under the last Local Plan only achieved 23% affordable housing which probably was the consequence of viability arguments from developers. Perhaps the proposal to reduce this to a 20% requirement is intended to make the target achievable? But the outcome is likely to be developers making the same arguments for similar reductions bring the deliverable supply down to about 13%.

More details about Rep ID: 10645

Representation ID: 10639

SUPPORT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Yes a lower percentage would be better to keep the mix of houses more proportionate

More details about Rep ID: 10639

Representation ID: 10557

COMMENT Countryside Properties (Mrs Emma Woods)

Summary:

As there is no viability evidence published alongside the plan we cannot comment on the appropriateness of the proportion of affordable housing that is expected on appropriate sites. However, whilst we appreciate that the Council has recognised that the affordable housing contributions may impact on the viability of some development it is important that this is set out in any final policy wording.

More details about Rep ID: 10557

Representation ID: 10506

COMMENT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
* There is not a reduction in affordable housing need, there is an increase, that is a nationally recognised fact, and BMSDC need to enforce the standing policy of 35% more robustly to achieve that.
* This could be improved by apply the policy to developments of three or more homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes.

More details about Rep ID: 10506

Representation ID: 10424

COMMENT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
* There is not a reduction in affordable housing need, there is an increase, that is a nationally recognised fact, and BMSDC need to enforce the standing policy of 35% more robustly to achieve that.
* This could be improved by apply the policy to developments of three or more homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes.

More details about Rep ID: 10424

Representation ID: 10402

COMMENT Delphi Diesel Systems represented by Colliers International (Mr Leigh Thomas)

Summary:

We request that the relevant viability evidence is provided by the Council before an affordable housing requirement is set. Regardless of the affordable housing requirement that is set, we consider that developers should be given the opportunity to submit evidence which demonstrates the level of affordable housing that can be provided without jeopardising the viability of the development. This is in accordance with the NPPF which states that in pursuing sustainable development, careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking must be taken and that plans should be deliverable (Paragraph 179 of the NPPF).

More details about Rep ID: 10402

Representation ID: 10278

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We consider that the Councils' affordable housing provision should be up to 35%. This would be a suitable starting point, however, we also consider that the Councils should clearly state that affordable housing contributions should be met only where possible and where viable.

More details about Rep ID: 10278

Representation ID: 10066

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

Historic England supports the provision of an affordable housing policy but does not
advocate a specific percentage provision.

More details about Rep ID: 10066

Representation ID: 9995

COMMENT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
There is not a reduction in affordable housing need, there is an increase and BMSDC need to enforce the standing policy of 35% more robustly to achieve that.
* This could be improved by apply the policy to developments of three or more homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes.
Starter homes should be added into this mix.

More details about Rep ID: 9995

Representation ID: 9970

COMMENT Julie Brown

Summary:

* I support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, and this should be robustly enforced.
* Smaller developments assimilate into the rural character of the county.

More details about Rep ID: 9970

Representation ID: 9851

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

Retain 35% affordable housing

More details about Rep ID: 9851

Representation ID: 9712

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

It depends upon how 35% is calculated. Presumably, there are different needs in different parts of the Mid Suffolk area. Each area requires research and, as far as possible, the percentage should depend upon need.

More details about Rep ID: 9712

Representation ID: 9645

COMMENT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

Provisions for Affordable homes should also consider Starter homes which are more appropriate to support growth of local community.

I support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.

If the target is reduced to 20% then developers reduce the deliverable supply down to 13% on viability arguments. There is not a reduction in affordable housing need, there is an increase, that is a nationally recognised fact, and BMSDC need to enforce the standing policy of 35% more robustly to achieve that. Starter homes should also be added into this mix.

More details about Rep ID: 9645

Representation ID: 9539

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Viability has long been an excuse for contributions to vary. If it is policy then it should be enforced, even if it means a lower % being built. CIL was meant as an upfront charge affecting land prices. Affordable housing should be the same, but we must put them near to facilities and employment. If there is a need for cheap housing - low pay employment should be available without huge costs of commuting! (Recent national profit figures for the "big" builders show a flat lining number of homes being built but profits increasing. Current policies encourage this imbalance.)

More details about Rep ID: 9539

Representation ID: 9438

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

35% for development currently approved will meet demand in our area, provided it is met and not waived because of a claim of not being viable.
If 35% is not met, there must be a significant additional contribution to local infrastructure above normal CIL.

More details about Rep ID: 9438

Representation ID: 9400

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

I support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
The total need for affordable house suggested is 19.4%. This is a drop from the previous policy of 35% in the face of a 71% local increase in private rentals. BDC under the last Local Plan only achieved 23% affordable housing which probably was the consequence of viability arguments from developers. Perhaps the proposal to reduce this to a 20% requirement is intended to make the target achievable? Outcome is likely to be developers making the same arguments for reductions down to 13%.

More details about Rep ID: 9400

Representation ID: 9389

SUPPORT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

35% is considered appropriate

More details about Rep ID: 9389

Representation ID: 9327

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

Summary:

The Ipswich and Waveney Housing Market Areas Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), forms a key part of the evidence base underpinning the new Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan. Indeed, the objectively-assessed housing needs figures promoted in the Consultation Document have been derived from the SHMA work. As identified at page 33 of the Consultation Document the SHMA also identifies affordable housing need figures of 19.4% of the total objectively-assessed need in Babergh and 17.4% of the total objectively assessed need in Mid-Suffolk. Given the evidence that the Councils have commissioned and been presented with in the SHMA it is unclear as to why the Joint Local Plan would promote a figure of 35% affordable housing.

More details about Rep ID: 9327

Representation ID: 9254

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

Summary:

The consultation paper notes that affordable housing need in Babergh and Mid Suffolk is around 22%/23%, but the preferred approach is to seek affordable housing at a rate of 35%, on the basis that, once non-delivery from smaller sites is taken in to account, a 35% requirement achieves affordable housing delivery at around the required rates. In other words, a 35% requirement on larger sites subsidises a lack of delivery on smaller sites and sites on which affordable housing is not viable. We would question whether this approach is appropriate under the CIL Regulations, since on the face of it, larger housing developments are being required to provide mitigation above their own impact.

More details about Rep ID: 9254

Representation ID: 9198

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

I support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced.
The total need for affordable house suggested is 19.4%. This is a drop from the previous policy of 35% in the face of a 71% local increase in private rentals (i.e. homes being bought up and rented to people who can't afford to buy a home), an increase in single parents looking for homes and an increase in local financial deprivation. That just doesn't stack up.
If target is reduced to 20% then the deliverable supply will reduce down to about 13%. There is an increase in affordable housing need not a reduction.

More details about Rep ID: 9198

Representation ID: 9168

COMMENT J D Pickett

Summary:

There has been an erosion of the 35% Affordable housing requirement, I understand that Babergh is currently running at 23%, this must not continue. Developers must be made to build the right amount of affordable housing, the right amount of infrastructure and provide the right services from the start of the build, not leave it until the last and then not do it.

More details about Rep ID: 9168

Representation ID: 9133

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

Summary:

With affordable housing need in Mid Suffolk at 17.4% it is iniquitous to seek 35% affordable on mid-large developments. This percentage, combined with CIL will make many schemes unviable. 25% is more appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 9133

Representation ID: 8774

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

I don't see how any % can apply to all situations. It may be that in some cases more, or less, is required. The council needs flexibility to determine on a case by case basis

More details about Rep ID: 8774

Representation ID: 8563

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

Summary:

With affordable housing need in Mid Suffolk at 17.4% it is iniquitous to seek 35% affordable on mid-large developments. This percentage, combined with CIL will make many schemes unviable. 25% is more appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 8563

Representation ID: 8308

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council feels that the Planning Authority ought to have some flexibility to direct developers regarding the mix of 35% of housing in a particular development in order to deliver the objectives set out in Option HM2.

Location and local infrastructure may dictate whether greater emphasis is given to affordable housing or to bungalows for the elderly.

The Council is however concerned that directing developers to build less profitable housing stock will result in developable sites remaining empty.

More details about Rep ID: 8308

Representation ID: 8226

SUPPORT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

Yes, 35% seems appropriate percentage. I support AH1.

More details about Rep ID: 8226

Representation ID: 8088

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

Summary:

35% seems to be a viable target, allowing sufficient market value housing to provide an adequate return for developers. 14 affordable in a development of 40 houses would appear reasonable. Affordable needs definition too, as a % of local earnings, or perhaps reserved or prioritized for key service workers etc.

More details about Rep ID: 8088

Representation ID: 7810

COMMENT Mr John Foster

Summary:

See relevant section of BAPTC submission.

More details about Rep ID: 7810

Representation ID: 7770

SUPPORT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

Holbrook Parish Council supports this figure to ensure sufficient affordable housing is made available.

More details about Rep ID: 7770

Representation ID: 7672

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

No, we consider the requirement for affordable homes should remain at the current 35%.

More details about Rep ID: 7672

Representation ID: 7610

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Retain 35% as a minimum and enforce more robustly.

More details about Rep ID: 7610

Representation ID: 7481

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Set the percentage to ensure a more even mix - if it is set at 35% smaller sites are more able to argue viability thus affordable housing will be distributed disproportionately in larger developments and in larger settlements, removing choice, and narrowing social mix in more rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 7481

Representation ID: 7472

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

BDC have previously planning permissions for much lower % of affordable housing. This practice must cease and the 35% should be adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 7472

Representation ID: 7295

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

The 35% should relate to a fixed number of dwellings at a specified point in time as 35% is exponential and increases in number as more dwellings are built.

More details about Rep ID: 7295

Representation ID: 7168

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

It would be nice if any agreed percentage was adhered too, perhaps we should look at ways of enforcing this before any change.

More details about Rep ID: 7168

Representation ID: 7024

OBJECT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Believe that the current rate of 35% is appropriate where demand reflects such a need

More details about Rep ID: 7024

Representation ID: 6715

COMMENT Yaxley Parish Council (Mr Philip Freeman)

Summary:

It should be maintained at 35%

More details about Rep ID: 6715

Representation ID: 6709

COMMENT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

35% seems reasonable, but for small sites where an exemption on building affordable housing is possible the council should consider a lower threshold for developers to ensure that for small sites in hamlets and hinterland villages affordable housing is built. Affordable housing needs to be spread around the district and not concentrated in certain areas where planning obligations require its construction.

More details about Rep ID: 6709

Representation ID: 6654

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

BDC have previously given planning permission for a much reduced % of affordable housing. This practice should cease and the 35% be adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 6654

Representation ID: 6405

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

There is a need for more affordable housing. therefore we recommend that no developments should have less than the 35% off affordable housing

More details about Rep ID: 6405

Representation ID: 6400

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Keep 35% although expect there will be pressure downwards on this if meeting 22% when expectation is we need 17.5%. Smaller sites are more able to argue viability so may need lower % to avoid affordable housing being distributed disproportionately in larger developments and in larger settlements, removing choice, and narrowing social mix in more rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 6400

Representation ID: 6328

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

It is imperative to consider local need.

More details about Rep ID: 6328

Representation ID: 6252

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

35% should be the requirement, more if needed. Erosion of the 35% requirement (average is 23% in Babergh) by developers arguing that it makes a site uneconomic must stop.
The draft plan proposes the total need for affordable housing is just 19.4%. Original research data has not been supplied to support this proposal. SPC believes a higher percentage of low cost market housing is required in order to maintain balanced communities that are sustainable in the longer term. The Districts need homes that are affordable for young couples and families. This can be achieved through a mix that includes properties managed by housing associations, parish trusts and councils as well as the private sector as part of larger schemes. However, larger property developers have not demonstrated an ability or desire to meet this need. As stated above, the assessment of viability at the Local Plan stage can help ensure developers have a clear mandate to meet their obligation from the outset.
Against a previous demand of 35% BDC actually only achieved 23%. Therefore, if the same level of success is achieved, for a 20% requirement we might only expect 13% delivery which is a fraction of what is actually required. It is therefore clear that the JLP needs to give greater consideration to the delivery of truly affordable homes.

More details about Rep ID: 6252

Representation ID: 6155

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

In order for the Councils to insert a figure into their plan, it has to have been the subject of scrutiny and is reflective of the full objectively assessed need. As current policies seek 35% then we would assume that this will be the figure being applied in any new affordable housing policy. Importantly the policy must include wording to reflect the case that the Council seek the 35% figure but that it cases where viability matters are proven which challenge such a figure then a lower figure may be considered acceptable (subject to all other planning considerations)

More details about Rep ID: 6155

Representation ID: 6142

SUPPORT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

We support 35%. You will inevitably have problems with developers arguing lack of viability. However, where the previous use of the land was agricultural it should be almost impossible to demonstrate a convincing viability issue, but this does mean that the Councils have to have the expertise and resolve to pursue the argument.

More details about Rep ID: 6142

Representation ID: 6062

COMMENT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* We support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced. the total need for affordable house suggested is 19.4%. This is a drop from the previous policy of 35% in the face of increasing private rentals, single parents and financial deprivation. This doesn't stack up.

If the target is reduced to 20%, developers could reduce this to 13%.

There is not a reduction in affordable housing need. Starter homes should be added into the mix.

More details about Rep ID: 6062

Representation ID: 5900

OBJECT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes that the 35% target for sites above 10 dwellings should be retained.

More details about Rep ID: 5900

Representation ID: 5868

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5868

Representation ID: 5737

COMMENT Paul Hales Associates (Mr. Paul Hales)

Summary:

The OAN identified a need for 12.9% social rent/affordable rent and 6.5% shared ownership a total of 19.4%. Whilst sites <10 units are not required to provide any affordable housing this is will in part be offset by affordable housing provided on rural exception sites. A requirement for 35% affordable housing requirement on allocated housing sites seems excessive in relation to the OAN identified need of < than 20%. A 25% affordable housing requirement would be more in line with the findings of the OAN.

More details about Rep ID: 5737

Representation ID: 5710

OBJECT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

35% should be maintained. It should meet demand, including existing and plan for the 'registered list' to be eradicated. 35% may be a considered a starting point for developers to negotiate down, but as the relevant reports are in the public domain, developers will be aware of the statistical analysis. Any viability test needs to be in the public domain, by using the open book model.
Viability is a cloak that developers hide behind, the JLP must include a firm policy to do away with this devious practice - as other authorities have.

More details about Rep ID: 5710

Representation ID: 5545

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Should not be lowered.

More details about Rep ID: 5545

Representation ID: 5464

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council believes this should be to meet local needs.

More details about Rep ID: 5464

Representation ID: 5133

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

We support the retention of 35%

More details about Rep ID: 5133

Representation ID: 4990

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

No. This policy, whilst not always followed has set a reasonable benchmark. That should not be diluted and seems unlikely to be effecively increased.

More details about Rep ID: 4990

Representation ID: 4901

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

No, but consideration should be given to the need for employment
opportunities near to affordable housing.

More details about Rep ID: 4901

Representation ID: 4846

COMMENT Mrs Alison Crane

Summary:

* I support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, and this should be robustly enforced.
* Smaller developments assimilate into the rural character of the county.

More details about Rep ID: 4846

Representation ID: 4622

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

35% should be maintained. It should meet demand, including existing and plan for the 'registered list' to be eradicated. 35% may be a considered a starting point for developers to negotiate down, but as the relevant reports are in the public domain, developers will be aware of the statistical analysis. Any viability test needs to be in the public domain, by using the open book model.

More details about Rep ID: 4622

Representation ID: 4619

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

35% is acceptable. Although we are clear that the term "affordable" has been degraded. So called "affordable" homes are not really affordable for most people.

More details about Rep ID: 4619

Representation ID: 4357

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

We support the retention of a 35% Affordable Housing target, but it MUST BE more robustly enforced than in the past.

Need for Affordable Housing is not compatible with the increase in private rentals, single parents and local financial deprivation. What justifies the reduction?

Reducing the requirement to 20% would allow developers to make viability arguments bringing the supply down to about 13%. If anything an increase in affordable housing is needed. BMSDC should applying the policy to developments of 3+ homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes.

More details about Rep ID: 4357

Representation ID: 4279

SUPPORT Mr Jeremy Doncaster

Summary:

I strongly support the retention of a 35% affordable housing target, but it should be more robustly enforced

More details about Rep ID: 4279

Representation ID: 4257

COMMENT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

The percentage of affordable housing to be required should only be set lower than 35% if the evidence to support the current figure indicates.

More details about Rep ID: 4257

Representation ID: 4209

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Erosion of 35% Affordable housing requirement (average 23% in Babergh) by developers arguing that it makes site uneconomical MUST STOP. 35% Figures should NOT BE REDUCED.

More details about Rep ID: 4209

Representation ID: 4191

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

It should be set at a percentage which addresses local community needs, i.e. the needs of the locality not the District as a whole; otherwise there is the risk of over-provision in some places and under-provision in others.

More details about Rep ID: 4191

Representation ID: 4160

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

The percentage should be based on OAN.

More details about Rep ID: 4160

Representation ID: 4031

COMMENT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

I strongly support the retention of a 35% Affordable Housing target, but it MUST BE more robustly enforced than in the past.

Need for Affordable Housing is not compatible with the increase in private rentals, single parents and local financial deprivation. What justifies the reduction?

Reducing the requirement to 20% would allow developers to make viability arguments bringing the supply down to about 13%. This is not acceptable. If anything I see an increase in affordable housing need. BMSDC should applying the policy to developments of three or more homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes. Start homes should be added into the mix.

More details about Rep ID: 4031

Representation ID: 3982

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

I strongly support the retention of a 35% Affordable Housing target, but it MUST BE more robustly enforced than in the past.

Need for Affordable Housing is not compatible with the increase in private rentals, single parents and local financial deprivation. What justifies the reduction?

Reducing the requirement to 20% would allow developers to make viability arguments bringing the supply down to about 13%. If anything an increase in affordable housing is needed. BMSDC should applying the policy to developments of 3+ homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes.

More details about Rep ID: 3982

Representation ID: 3785

COMMENT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

I strongly support the retention of a 35% Affordable Housing target, but it MUST BE more robustly enforced than in the past.

Need for Affordable Housing is not compatible with the increase in private rentals, single parents and local financial deprivation. What justifies the reduction?

Reducing the requirement to 20% would allow developers to make viability arguments bringing the supply down to about 13%. This is not acceptable. If anything I see an increase in affordable housing need. BMSDC should applying the policy to developments of three or more homes, or BMSDC engaging in the construction of council homes themselves that could all be affordable/starter homes. Start homes should be added into the mix.

More details about Rep ID: 3785

Representation ID: 3666

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

You can set the % you like but you PROBABLY won't achieve over 30%. Rising land values for commercial use limit you. 'Battles of experts' follow your final requirement. Requirement should only be set after the developer has purchased land for development. Developers appeal at national level against schemes rejected for too little affordable housing. National Government policy favours developers who use 'viability assessments'. Government expects c.20% of new developments to include starter homes instead of affordable. Affordable housing should cost under 35% of household income after tax and benefits as 35% difficult for people on very low incomes.

More details about Rep ID: 3666

Representation ID: 3433

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

BDC have previously planning permissions for much lower % of affordable housing. This practice must cease and the 35% adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 3433

Representation ID: 3414

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

In general terms the Parish Council agreed with this percentage however again as described in question 20 a 'one size fits all' policy should be avoided. Some communities in the region would benefit from a higher percentage, possibly those nearer to an urban development whilst some rural communities less so. The risk would be that if the percentage of Affordable Housing was set too high then developers might be less inclined to build those developments in the first place and be more attracted to the higher end private estates.

More details about Rep ID: 3414

Representation ID: 3242

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

The amount of affordable housing required should be decided in relation to local need

More details about Rep ID: 3242

Representation ID: 2862

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

Summary:

The DDNP will have to take into consideration the local housing requirement and mixes of type and tenure as appropriate not only to the DDNP Area but to the individual settlements within it.
E.g. Scole Parish (Norfolk) is over-supplied with social housing but lacks larger private dwellings; other settlements may benefit from varying proportions of affordable and market housing.

More details about Rep ID: 2862

Representation ID: 2612

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council maintains that the approach should be flexible in terms of site circumstances, location and need.

More details about Rep ID: 2612

Representation ID: 2587

COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)

Summary:

The Society considers that the District Councils ought seek to achieve 35% affordable housing provision within the overall housing allocations required to meet the OAN housing need. The reason being that the districts both have high levels of need for social rent and equity shared properties to meet the changing socio-economic characteristic of the population. To target a lower figure will result in an even poorer level of provision than achieved to date

More details about Rep ID: 2587

Representation ID: 2425

COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Yes. Developers negotiate that figure down to nearer 20-25%, and therefore an initial starting figure of 35% gives Babergh room to negotiate.

More details about Rep ID: 2425

Representation ID: 2400

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

The current level is sufficient.

More details about Rep ID: 2400

Representation ID: 2141

OBJECT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

No, but the existing percentage must be rigorously enforced once development has commenced and not reduced due to 'commercial viability'!

More details about Rep ID: 2141

Representation ID: 1920

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

It should be set at a percentage which addresses local community needs, i.e. the needs of the locality not the District as a whole; otherwise there is the risk of over-provision in some places and under-provision in others.

More details about Rep ID: 1920

Representation ID: 1815

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

For MSDC, the adopted policy figure of 35% seems a little high. The SHMA figure of 17.5 (possibly 20%) should be used instead.

More details about Rep ID: 1815

Representation ID: 1750

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

For MSDC, the adopted policy figure of 35% seems a little high. The SHMA figure of 17.5 (possibly 20%) should be used instead.

More details about Rep ID: 1750

Representation ID: 1709

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Yes, it should be 50% to allow the overall percentage to grow from its present very low level

More details about Rep ID: 1709

Representation ID: 1664

SUPPORT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council supports the concept of 35% and asks how this would be enforced?

More details about Rep ID: 1664

Representation ID: 1401

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 1401

Representation ID: 1244

OBJECT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

No. 35% is fine.

More details about Rep ID: 1244

Representation ID: 1174

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

35% is too high. This increases the costs to all others who have to buy at market price. Developments should contain a mix of housing some small some large, the plan could define the number of one and two bedroom houses in any development.

More details about Rep ID: 1174

Representation ID: 1135

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

35% is double the target so makes the target more achievable.

More details about Rep ID: 1135

Representation ID: 850

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

The percentage is right as a minimum, except the Plan fails to specify that part of this should be Social Housing; or that the District will be finding ways to enforce the percentage on developers. Babergh approved on 25/10/17 a figure for Chilton Woods of 25%, with no affordable housing in Phase 1, for reasons which I consider spurious (as argued by Councillor Busby in the face of unwarranted sarcasm from the Chairman), that the applicant ie Suffolk County Council, should not have to pay any of the development costs.

More details about Rep ID: 850

Representation ID: 804

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

Summary:

In the Fressingfield area the Affordable Housing target is too high. There are currently 11 families on the waiting list for affordable homes in Fressingfield. All can be accommodated within the housing developments approved but not yet built. To build more would result in people with no connection with Fressingfield living in a village with no employment to speak of, one public bus per week and limited social life. The target needs to be realistic and reflect local need. Say 5% as more locals apply to be on the list.

More details about Rep ID: 804

Representation ID: 638

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC considers that social housing should reflect local neighbourhood needs particularly in core villages and hinterland villages rather than by using a set target.

More details about Rep ID: 638

Representation ID: 544

COMMENT Cllr Clive Chopping

Summary:

We have seen in the past that the 35% affordable housing provision is regularly waived. This is largely because it is not attractive to developers or cost effective for them. Mixing market housing and affordable housing will continue to be an issue and specific affordable housing developments that have no market housing such as in RE1 may provide an answer.

More details about Rep ID: 544

Representation ID: 276

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

35% acceptable (I would rather see a computable sum held back for all affordable and council to produce 'council estates' which work to provide greater number of houses. Also, easy to manage.

More details about Rep ID: 276

Representation ID: 191

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Should be increased to at least 40% if younger members of the population are to be encouraged to stay in the area.

More details about Rep ID: 191

Representation ID: 156

COMMENT Mr Gerry Crease

Summary:

any development must include 10% of dwellings to be for affordable rent either by the local authority or a housing association, to ease the lengthening housing lists of local authorities

More details about Rep ID: 156

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

Powered by OpusConsult