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) - Q23

Representation ID: 13171

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

Summary:

We consider that the prioritisation of affordable housing or infrastructure should be dealt with on a case by case basis and should not be informed by a local plan policy.

Development needs to be viable and any policies should be in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 173.

More details about Rep ID: 13171

Representation ID: 12854

COMMENT Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (Ms Laura Townes)

Summary:

It is acknowledged that the delivery of affordable units can be challenging so polices should be flexible to enable the provision of non-traditional tenures that can help to meet need, including low cost homes and rent to buy homes. The consultation document acknowledges the high ratio of house prices to income in the districts, which indicates low affordability. To improve affordability of market housing the Councils should increase the housing requirements above the OAN to improve supply. An increased housing requirement will also facilitate the delivery of additional affordable rented and shared ownership dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 12854

Representation ID: 12544

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

Summary:

it is plainly the case that each case would need to be considered on its own merits and it is likely that viability will vary from site to site depending upon market costs, development costs etc. In this regard, where viability is an issue it is the case the contributions should comply with CIL regulation 122, which require that planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if the obligation is:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development, and
c) fairly and reasonably relates in scale and kind to the development

More details about Rep ID: 12544

Representation ID: 12485

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

Summary:

We consider that the prioritisation of affordable housing or infrastructure should be dealt with on a case by case basis and should not be informed by a local plan policy. Development needs to be viable and any policies should be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 173.

More details about Rep ID: 12485

Representation ID: 12392

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

The value of land in our parish is not at a premium and therefore the viability of both social housing and larger dwellings are equal.

More details about Rep ID: 12392

Representation ID: 12328

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

Summary:

We consider that the prioritisation of affordable housing or infrastructure should be dealt with on a case by case basis and should not be informed by a local plan policy.

Development needs to be viable and any policies should be in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 173.

More details about Rep ID: 12328

Representation ID: 12037

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) 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: 12037

Representation ID: 11810

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

Summary:

Affordable housing policy should recognise that viability can be a significant issue particularly on previously developed sites. The delivery of affordable housing should also be applied flexibly to allow a range of circumstances to be taken into account. This could include whether Registered Providers consider the site suitable for affordable housing. In such circumstances consideration should be given to other planning benefits.

More details about Rep ID: 11810

Representation ID: 11774

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

*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%.
*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 £250,000 exclusively to first time buyers these are the type of homes the local community needs

More details about Rep ID: 11774

Representation ID: 11687

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

My experience has been that BDC do not prioritise affordable housing over the provision of other infrastructure where viability is an issue e.g. the acceptance of 20% - 25% affordable housing element at Chilton Woods rather than an insistence on 35% where the county council could have made less profit.

More details about Rep ID: 11687

Representation ID: 11672

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

Summary:

We consider that the Council should prioritise affordable housing provision and other infrastructural provision on a case by case basis. We do not consider that the Councils should provide a policy which prioritises either infrastructure or affordable housing provision, as this would be too restrictive.

More details about Rep ID: 11672

Representation ID: 11422

COMMENT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS does not have strong views on this issue, but we are not sure that housing can or should be provided without adequate infrastructure. We are clear, however, about the existence of an acute need for housing for those who have grown up and want to stay in local areas, but cannot afford to get onto the bottom rung of the housing ladder. The plan must address this.

More details about Rep ID: 11422

Representation ID: 11224

COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

Given the critical importance of new infrastructure to support housing development, infrastructure provision should not be sacrificed for affordable housing. See infrastructure comments

More details about Rep ID: 11224

Representation ID: 11223

COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

Simply applying a formula of social housing provision to any development will not properly address issues. Needs proper local engagement and identification of local need of type/tenure. New plan should aim to achieve a more even geographic distribution of social housing. Where there is already a substantial proportion of social housing in a village (25%+) we consider that the proportion of social housing on any new development should be no greater than the existing proportion in the settlement, and may be less, depending on the mix of other types of affordable housing provided, e.g. shared ownership.

More details about Rep ID: 11223

Representation ID: 11016

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that the provision of affordable housing should be a top priority, however, the provision of infrastructure must take precedence in all instances.

More details about Rep ID: 11016

Representation ID: 10918

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

The affordable housing should be prioritised over the provision of infrastructure regardless of any viability issues.

More details about Rep ID: 10918

Representation ID: 10789

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

As always there is a balance to be struck. Would not like to abandon affordable housing altogether but there is scope for negotiation with each development.
Difficult- it depends on the infrastructure intended and the area involved.

More details about Rep ID: 10789

Representation ID: 10641

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Should not be prioritised

More details about Rep ID: 10641

Representation ID: 10616

COMMENT Harrow Estates (Miss Cindy Wan)

Summary:

Where viability is a constraint to development and the delivery of supporting infrastructure, the Councils should consider whether an increase scale of development or an alternative housing mix, or a reduced scale of affordable housing, could improve a scheme's viability and the prospects of it being brought forward.

This should be a consideration in settlements such as Elmswell where there are local aspirations to deliver costly transport improvements. There would be merit in Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils reviewing the viability of such locally supported schemes and considering whether a greater scale of development and/or a more flexible approach to housing mix could facilitate their delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 10616

Representation ID: 10537

COMMENT Rentplus represented by Tetlow King Planning (Meghan Rossiter)

Summary:

The very significant need for affordable housing demonstrated across both districts indicate that affordable housing should be prioritised. As a very significant driver of social and economic wellbeing, the delivery of this as part of development proposals should be very highly prioritised.

More details about Rep ID: 10537

Representation ID: 10280

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We consider that the prioritisation of affordable housing or infrastructure should be dealt with on a case by case basis and should not be informed by a local plan policy.

Development needs to be viable and any policies should be in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 173

More details about Rep ID: 10280

Representation ID: 9852

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

Affordable housing should be high priority; CIL (or specific grants or funding from County and District council tax) should provide infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 9852

Representation ID: 9713

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

In every case, all aspects of infrastructure where viability is an issue should be dealt with prior to building new houses. Currently, the situation is untenable where houses are being built with no development of infrastructure. However, affordable housing should take precedence over other housing.

More details about Rep ID: 9713

Representation ID: 9540

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

"Infrastructure" should include "affordable housing". If £3/4 million is needed to make a site "sustainable" then it must be in the wrong place so affordable housing will be in the wrong place.

(Our core strategic objectives include: The right homes in the right place at the right price". Current thinking appears to be "any homes in any location so that we can reap the New Homes Bonus!")

More details about Rep ID: 9540

Representation ID: 9439

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

With the difference in value between land with and without permission, there is no reason for a competent development to not be viable.

More details about Rep ID: 9439

Representation ID: 9402

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

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: 9402

Representation ID: 9134

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

Summary:

Affordable housing has a major impact on viability. Suggest reducing CIL and affordable housing requirement to balance viability.

More details about Rep ID: 9134

Representation ID: 9023

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

The affordability MUST be a priority against develop profits. The needs of the community need to come first and be supported by the council.

More details about Rep ID: 9023

Representation ID: 8812

SUPPORT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

welcome the thought process but it should be for the Council to consider which are its priorities if it ever has the ability to do so. Presently CIL Regs are such that the applicant or Council doesn't really have a choice where full CIL compliance is mandatory leaving the reduction of affordable housing as the only potential clawback towards a viable scheme.

More details about Rep ID: 8812

Representation ID: 8777

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

I assume viability largely means profit for the builder, i.e. will any builder take the job on? If "cheap" houses = low profit, this won't change... Is this one for Government support?

More details about Rep ID: 8777

Representation ID: 8575

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

We support prioritising affordable hosuing

More details about Rep ID: 8575

Representation ID: 8567

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

Summary:

Affordable housing has a major impact on viability. Suggest reducing CIL and affordable housing requirement to balance viability.

More details about Rep ID: 8567

Representation ID: 8316

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council believes that affordable housing generally requires access to a wide range of local infrastructure and not to provide good access to health, education and transport services is short-sighted.

More details about Rep ID: 8316

Representation ID: 8092

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

Summary:

The appropriate infrastructure is required for all development. The requirement for a proportion of affordable housing will be known from the outset of an application, and therefore should be within the planned risk margins. The percentage of affordable housing required should have been verified as acceptable for a development to be viable at the application stage.

More details about Rep ID: 8092

Representation ID: 8044

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

both are needed: you cannot approve more housing, affordable or other, without the necessary infrastructure to support such development.

More details about Rep ID: 8044

Representation ID: 7917

OBJECT Mr David Watts

Summary:

Infrastructure is key. Please do not build more housing of any type without building the roads and parking needed handle the extra cars. Plus we need more GPs desparately in the Long Melford / Lavenham area. Waiting time to see a GP is already a month.

More details about Rep ID: 7917

Representation ID: 7673

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Our experience has been that BDC do not prioritise affordable housing over the provision of other infrastructure where viability is an issue e.g. the acceptance of 20% - 25% affordable housing element at Chilton Woods rather than an insistence on 35% where the county council could have made less profit.

More details about Rep ID: 7673

Representation ID: 7620

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The new proposals for NPPF due next year are suggesting that issues like infrastructure and affordable housing should transparently be on the table and set as part of a LP. That would appear to be the way to deal with this as there is an oversupply of land and if one developer isn't prepared to provide a development that conforms to BMSDC policies then look to the next one on the list who quite probably will.

More details about Rep ID: 7620

Representation ID: 7605

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Infrastructure, schools, roads, healthcare and leisure facilities should be a priority regardless of the type of housing; quality of living is key for all

More details about Rep ID: 7605

Representation ID: 7473

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

The infrastructure, schools, roads, GP and dentists, health, care and leisure facilities should be a priority regardless of the type of houses being build. Village communities should be encouraged and maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 7473

Representation ID: 7422

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Infrastructure, schools, roads, healthcare and leisure facilities should be a priority regardless of the type of housing; quality of living is key for all.

More details about Rep ID: 7422

Representation ID: 7172

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

Should always be the priority to meeting the housing requirement of the the local electorate.

More details about Rep ID: 7172

Representation ID: 7032

SUPPORT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

It should be seen as a priority.

More details about Rep ID: 7032

Representation ID: 6657

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

The infrastructure, schools, roads, GPs, dentists health and care facilities, recreational and green spaces sgould be a priority regardless of the type of build. Village communities should be encouraged and maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 6657

Representation ID: 6412

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

Both affordable housing and infrastructure are equally important to the sustainability of new developments.

More details about Rep ID: 6412

Representation ID: 6401

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Affordable housing should be high priority; CIL (or specific grants or funding from County and District council tax) should provide infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 6401

Representation ID: 6330

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Affordable housing is important in rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 6330

Representation ID: 6254

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

If a site is properly allocated, whereby infrastructure, land costs, affordable housing ratios and all other costs are considered at the point of land sale, then viability should not be an issue.
Robust Local Plan site selection should avoid the subsequent viability "horse trading" by developers over infrastructure requirements versus affordable housing provision. Communities need infrastructure and services as well as correct housing types.

More details about Rep ID: 6254

Representation ID: 6169

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

There is no alternative other than to deal with these things on a case-by-case basis. All of the normal requirements of residential developments can usually be afforded from the uplift between agricultural and residential house values. If there are significant extra costs in dealing with brownfield sites then in principle people may accept that something has to give. This need not always be affordable housing. It is the difficult role of the authorities to judge how the best scheme can be achieved. Some developers and consultants are more reliable than others. The best value their integrity.

More details about Rep ID: 6169

Representation ID: 6157

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

This should be determined at application stage where the relative merits and weight to be given to other material considerations can be judged.

More details about Rep ID: 6157

Representation ID: 5905

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Affordable housing and other infrastructure should be prioritised according to local needs.

More details about Rep ID: 5905

Representation ID: 5870

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Provision needs consideration although at present developers find it too easy to ignore using viability as a reason. Other infrastructure should not be compromised. AH1 is too prescriptive.

More details about Rep ID: 5870

Representation ID: 5852

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

The affordability MUST be a priority against develop profits. The needs of the community need to come first and be supported by the council.

More details about Rep ID: 5852

Representation ID: 5740

COMMENT Paul Hales Associates (Mr. Paul Hales)

Summary:

Each case should be considered on it's individual merits.

More details about Rep ID: 5740

Representation ID: 5711

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

Affordable housing is not infrastructure. Members were elected to meet the needs of the total populace and affordable homes are a necessity.
The data included in the JLP is at odds with the HomeChoice register.
The affordable housing registered list of households needs to be met. An LHC could meet this and open market rented provision.

More details about Rep ID: 5711

Representation ID: 5549

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Disagree. Should not be a choice. Houses should be supported by infrastructure, both should be provided.

More details about Rep ID: 5549

Representation ID: 5465

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 5465

Representation ID: 5158

COMMENT Mrs Rosemary Jones

Summary:

Appropriate infrastructure is required regardless!
The proportion of affordable housing should be settled as part of a viable development: it will vary from place to place.

More details about Rep ID: 5158

Representation ID: 5130

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

The priority should be more affordable housing if viability is in doubt.

More details about Rep ID: 5130

Representation ID: 4995

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

This is an impossible question to answer. Both are necessary, according to circumstances. It is regrettable that sufficient of both are rarely achieved.

More details about Rep ID: 4995

Representation ID: 4625

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

The affordable housing registered list of households needs to be met. An LHC could meet this and open market rented provision.

More details about Rep ID: 4625

Representation ID: 4621

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Affordable housing is important in rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 4621

Representation ID: 4487

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The question was not clear enough to be able to give an answer.

More details about Rep ID: 4487

Representation ID: 4359

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Stupid question - both are required in order for a development to be viable.

The infrastructure, schools, roads, GP and dentists, health, care and leisure facilities should be a priority regardless of the type of houses being build. Village communities should be encouraged and maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 4359

Representation ID: 4261

COMMENT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

This judgement can only be made on the merits of the scheme, the other infrastructure requirements and context for the viability assessment.

More details about Rep ID: 4261

Representation ID: 4216

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Robust Local Plan site selection should avoid the subsequent viability "horse trading" by developers over infrastructers requitrements versus affordable housing provision. Communities need infrastructure and services as well as correct housing.

More details about Rep ID: 4216

Representation ID: 4195

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

The infrastructure, schools, roads, GP and dentists, health, care and leisure facilities should be a priority regardless of the type of houses being build. Village communities should be encouraged and maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 4195

Representation ID: 4103

COMMENT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

Starter homes should be given the same priority as Affordable Housing

More details about Rep ID: 4103

Representation ID: 3988

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Stupid question - both are required in order for a development to be viable.

The infrastructure, schools, roads, GP and dentists, health, care and leisure facilities should be a priority regardless of the type of houses being build. Village communities should be encouraged and maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 3988

Representation ID: 3669

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Infrastructure should always be the priority.

More details about Rep ID: 3669

Representation ID: 3667

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Infrastructure should always be the priority.

More details about Rep ID: 3667

Representation ID: 3434

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

The infrastructure, schools, roads, GP and dentists, health, care and leisure facilities should be a priority regardless of the type of houses being build. Village communities should be encouraged and maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 3434

Representation ID: 3416

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

The balance between Affordable Housing and other types of housing in communities is recognised as being difficult. In general terms the Parish Council would support the view put forward in AH1 but with a caveat that to address the difficult balance described earlier that flexibility should be built into the concept so that the proportion of affordable homes should be triggered numerically or by floor space. Some areas with good transport links, business opportunities and a well established infrastructure may benefit from a higher proportion of Affordable Housing.

More details about Rep ID: 3416

Representation ID: 3243

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Should be built on consideration of local need and local priorities.

More details about Rep ID: 3243

Representation ID: 2974

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

Affordability should be in perpetuity.

More details about Rep ID: 2974

Representation ID: 2863

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.

This may result in a variable need for and distribution of affordable housing and the opportunity can be created to distribute contributions towards infrastructure across the DDNP Area.

More details about Rep ID: 2863

Representation ID: 2785

COMMENT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Affordable housing should be prioritised in rural areas

More details about Rep ID: 2785

Representation ID: 2614

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council considers that proven need should be the driver on prioritisation.

More details about Rep ID: 2614

Representation ID: 2401

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

It should be prioritised.

More details about Rep ID: 2401

Representation ID: 2142

COMMENT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

Affordable housing must be prioritised once agreed at planning approval.

More details about Rep ID: 2142

Representation ID: 2056

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

Depends what sort of infrastructure you are referring to.

More details about Rep ID: 2056

Representation ID: 1921

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

As per the response to Q 22, according to local community needs.

More details about Rep ID: 1921

Representation ID: 1816

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

It seems as though it is all too easy for developers to renege
on the numbers of affordable homes based on viability
grounds. Once the numbers are agreed they should be
binding. If developers use the viability argument there should
be a requirement that they open their books to demonstrate
their case, including information on land prices.

More details about Rep ID: 1816

Representation ID: 1751

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

It seems as though it is all too easy for developers to renege
on the numbers of affordable homes based on viability
grounds. Once the numbers are agreed they should be
binding. If developers use the viability argument there should
be a requirement that they open their books to demonstrate
their case, including information on land prices.

More details about Rep ID: 1751

Representation ID: 1710

OBJECT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

No, it should not be prioritised over other infrastructure since there is a huge lack of surgery and school spaces in the district

More details about Rep ID: 1710

Representation ID: 1665

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Affordable housing should not be prioritised over sufficient infrastructure. Both housing and infrastructure are important and should be addressed per individual development.

More details about Rep ID: 1665

Representation ID: 1402

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Where descendants of local villagers cannot afford to purchase homes in their home village

More details about Rep ID: 1402

Representation ID: 1192

COMMENT Simon Bell

Summary:

Infrastructure is the key to all development, whether for affordable homes or not. Consequently, infrastructure, not affordability, should be the key to understanding viability and not the other way around.

In practice, this means that affordable housing should not be prioritised without recognising infrastructure requirements. Otherwise, affordable housing would be permitted anywhere and thus fail the NPPF sustainable goals test.

More details about Rep ID: 1192

Representation ID: 851

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

It is unacceptable that infrastructure, including open space, should be seen as in any way optional, since building is forever; and we propose Districts should ensure that pleas of commercial non-viability are pre-empted by advance imposition of binding conditions. We propose that, to meet the requirement of balancing Economic, Social and Environmental, the Plan should state a policy of deciding infrastructure, including open space, before the area and number of dwellings is fixed, irrespective of type.

More details about Rep ID: 851

Representation ID: 805

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

Summary:

We are not sure what this question means. Viability should always take precedence.

More details about Rep ID: 805

Representation ID: 640

COMMENT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC agrees with prioritising social housing over infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 640

Representation ID: 278

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

They are mutually interdependent

More details about Rep ID: 278

Representation ID: 192

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Until local the demand for affordable housing is met or at least target nearly met it should be given highest priority.

More details about Rep ID: 192

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

Powered by OpusConsult