Home > Planning > Planning Policy

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

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) - Q25

Representation ID: 13173

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

Summary:

We agree with Option RE2, however, we do not consider that a maximum percentage of market housing should be considered acceptable on rural exception sites. Rather, we consider that the percentage of market housing on rural exception sites should be considered on a case by case basis and guided by viability, which should be considered as an important indicator of the percentage of market housing that should be provided on a rural exception site.

More details about Rep ID: 13173

Representation ID: 12806

OBJECT East Bergholt Parish Council (Susan Clements)

Summary:

An open door policy on these (RE2) which the Councils prefer is open to abuse and offers just more potential to add layers to existing settlements. And given the plan proposes amending settlement boundaries anyway there is no justification for RE2. So RE1 is preferred.

More details about Rep ID: 12806

Representation ID: 12545

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

Summary:

We support the inclusion of this policy, and note that is should be based on site specific circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 12545

Representation ID: 12487

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

Summary:

We agree with Option RE2, however, we do not consider that a maximum percentage of market housing should be considered acceptable on rural exception sites. Rather, we consider that the percentage of market housing on rural exception sites should be considered on a case by case basis and guided by viability, which should be considered as an important indicator of the percentage of market housing that should be provided on a rural exception site.

More details about Rep ID: 12487

Representation ID: 12394

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

65% market housing and 35% affordable would be agreeable.

More details about Rep ID: 12394

Representation ID: 12331

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

Summary:

We agree with Option RE2, however, we do not consider that a maximum percentage of market housing should be considered acceptable on rural exception sites. Rather, we consider that the percentage of market housing on rural exception sites should be considered on a case by case basis and guided by viability, which should be considered as an important indicator of the percentage of market housing that should be provided on a rural exception site.

More details about Rep ID: 12331

Representation ID: 11781

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

*Housing mix should consider need not greatest developers profits

More details about Rep ID: 11781

Representation ID: 11424

COMMENT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS is not expert on this issue, but no more than 25% or thereabouts market housing would seem to guard against abuse of this exception. We also think that Rural Exception Sites should have a maximum size of 6 affordable units.

More details about Rep ID: 11424

Representation ID: 11198

COMMENT Mr Nigel Roberts

Summary:

I think an open door policy on these (RE2) which the Councils prefer is open to abuse and offers just more potential to add layers to existing settlements at will. G that the consultation draft proposes to amend settlement boundaries in the plan anyway there is no justification for RE2. So RE1 is preferred.

More details about Rep ID: 11198

Representation ID: 11020

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council recommends a maximum of 25%.

More details about Rep ID: 11020

Representation ID: 10922

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

Option RE2 Market housing is supported on rural exception sites. The wording of Option RE2 to "include a rural exception site policy which would support an element of market housing where this is necessary to bring a site forward and where the scale is proportionate to the overall aim of delivering affordable housing" is appropriate for this approach. The maximum percentage of market housing would be revealed within the financial viability assessment for the site and cannot be determined as a figure.

More details about Rep ID: 10922

Representation ID: 10791

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

20% subject to site viability.

More details about Rep ID: 10791

Representation ID: 10644

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

RE2 not supported

More details about Rep ID: 10644

Representation ID: 9854

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

The percentage of market housing included in such schemes will depend on local circumstances. The size of development should be appropriate for the size of the settlement. A maximum of 25% would probably be fair.

More details about Rep ID: 9854

Representation ID: 9829

COMMENT Earl Stonham Parish Council (Mrs Jennie Blackburn)

Summary:

regarding Options RE2, the Parish Council suggest that if this option is adopted, a maximum proportion of market housing (say 25-30%) is specified to guard against inflated land prices.

More details about Rep ID: 9829

Representation ID: 9715

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

It is not clear what is meant by 'to bring the site forward'? However, so much is dependent upon the circumstances and, again a maximum percentage of market housing would not be appropriate. In general, rural areas should be maintained but, if this refers to rural towns and villages, then the individual settlement needs to be researched for appropriate building projects with a significant number of houses being built for first-time buyers who are being squeezed out of the market.

More details about Rep ID: 9715

Representation ID: 9543

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Rural Exception site policies are not required under the NPPF rules. If a site is acceptable the appropriate Affordability to market ratio applies. Affordable House sales receipts should be re-used quicker and thus the effect of the "loss" of a home is minimised. Discounts are too large and distort the market.

More details about Rep ID: 9543

Representation ID: 9442

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Not required locally, if affordable targets are met.

More details about Rep ID: 9442

Representation ID: 9441

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Not required locally, if affordable targets are met.

More details about Rep ID: 9441

Representation ID: 9339

OBJECT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council believes that the current Rural Exception Policy should be maintained as at present

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council proposes that no market housing should be included in rural exception sites, as at present.

More details about Rep ID: 9339

Representation ID: 9237

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

Summary:

It is considered that this can only be determined by the specific circumstances of each site and it would not be appropriate to apply an arbitrary figure to rural exception sites. Option RE1 should be deleted as it does not accord with the advice contained at paragraph 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework and no evidence has been provided to substantiate why this option is being proposed especially as it does not accord with the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 9237

Representation ID: 9136

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

Summary:

30% market housing

More details about Rep ID: 9136

Representation ID: 9029

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

The introductions of exceptions to the principles cerates perverse behaviours and results in less investment in affordable housing in the areas that need it most.

More details about Rep ID: 9029

Representation ID: 8859

SUPPORT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

a level which is sufficient incentive for the landowner to bring forward such sites which I think should be at least 50%.

More details about Rep ID: 8859

Representation ID: 8781

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Dependent on circumstance - a proscriptive % doesn't work - and the builder will want profit...

More details about Rep ID: 8781

Representation ID: 8587

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

A maximum of 30% or thereabouts of market value hosuing but it needs to be decided on a case by case basis

More details about Rep ID: 8587

Representation ID: 8572

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

Summary:

30% market housing

More details about Rep ID: 8572

Representation ID: 8322

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council supports Option RE2 noting that it will be included only where both criteria are met.
The Council believes that the Planning Authority should retain discretion as to the % of market housing where rural exemption sites are brought to market and be guided by factors such as the demand for such housing from those with a local
(within 5km) connection.

More details about Rep ID: 8322

Representation ID: 8245

SUPPORT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

RE2 is sensible but needs to be carefully considered on a site by site basis so that the whole development is appropriate to the setting. It would be sensible in most cases for there to be smaller cottage style market housing alongside affordable homes in rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 8245

Representation ID: 8099

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

Summary:

If RE2 were supported in order to ensure the viability of Rural Exception Sites it should be consistent with the normal planning percentage, but RE2 should only be accepted in exceptional cases.

More details about Rep ID: 8099

Representation ID: 8053

SUPPORT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

Tattingstone would accept 5% over the whole period of the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 8053

Representation ID: 7906

OBJECT Mr David Watts

Summary:

No. Rural sites should remain rural.

More details about Rep ID: 7906

Representation ID: 7636

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

If the BMSDC delivers the level of affordable housing needed by robustly enforcing a level of 35% then there should be no need for this. I am therefore concerned the question is being asked because it seams like an admission that the council may not.

More details about Rep ID: 7636

Representation ID: 7490

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

1 in 6 as this was a ratio considered by Hastoes.
Is it true that the majority of allocations have been completed? 600 yet to be built on Chilton Leys, and Ashes Farm has not been started.

More details about Rep ID: 7490

Representation ID: 7476

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

35% affordable housing 10% starter homes, as for planning purposes these cannot be considered as affordable housing....leaving 55% for the market.

More details about Rep ID: 7476

Representation ID: 7215

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

If there is an element pf market housing it should only be equal to the cost of the developing the the exception. They should also be of a standard not to discriminate.

More details about Rep ID: 7215

Representation ID: 6661

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

35% affordable housing, 10% starter homes...leaving 55% for the market.

More details about Rep ID: 6661

Representation ID: 6408

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

The size of development should be appropriate for the size of the settlement. Where required, for reasons of viability, there could be 25% max market housing where 'affordable' rentals are provided, and maximum 50% to fund 'Social rents.'

More details about Rep ID: 6408

Representation ID: 6332

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

No comment

More details about Rep ID: 6332

Representation ID: 6263

OBJECT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

We do not support option RE2

More details about Rep ID: 6263

Representation ID: 6167

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

Where there is clear local need and community support for affordable housing then viability issues could warrant up to 50% market housing. However we do not consider it appropriate that such a detailed reference is made in a development plan. The policy should be general in nature and should support affordable housing on exceptional sites where market housing could take place where it is necessary to make the site deliverable.

More details about Rep ID: 6167

Representation ID: 5914

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes the maximum percentage of Market Housing should be set at 20%.

More details about Rep ID: 5914

Representation ID: 5875

OBJECT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

RE2 is not supported.

More details about Rep ID: 5875

Representation ID: 5859

OBJECT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

The introductions of exceptions to the principles creates perverse behaviours and results in less investment in affordable housing in the areas that need it most.

More details about Rep ID: 5859

Representation ID: 5713

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

RE2 is supported. A 35% open market element would appear relevant, and any viability argument to resist this must be based on any viability test using an open book method.

More details about Rep ID: 5713

Representation ID: 5555

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

65% as 35% should be for Affordable Housing.

More details about Rep ID: 5555

Representation ID: 5469

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council feels this would depend on the cost of the development but sufficient to make the project sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 5469

Representation ID: 5125

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

Up to 50% of market housing should be allowed; this will deliver both affordable and market housing

More details about Rep ID: 5125

Representation ID: 5122

COMMENT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

The percentage would always be reliant on the site being reviewed.

More details about Rep ID: 5122

Representation ID: 4996

SUPPORT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

80%

More details about Rep ID: 4996

Representation ID: 4905

OBJECT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

We do not support any market housing on rural exception sites.

More details about Rep ID: 4905

Representation ID: 4632

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

RE2 is supported. A 35% open market element would appear relevant, and any viability argument to resist this must be based on any viability test using an open book method.

More details about Rep ID: 4632

Representation ID: 4626

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

No comment

More details about Rep ID: 4626

Representation ID: 4489

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

When considering rural exception sites care needs to be taken to protect heritage assets. There is no doubt that there is a demand for housing for younger people who can't afford expensive houses in rural villages. After consideration the Parish Council would support RE2 if it was amended to include a clear statement about the scale of market housing included on rural exception sites. The scale should be proportionate to the site and village where the affordable housing is being delivered.

More details about Rep ID: 4489

Representation ID: 4362

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

35% affordable housing 10% starter homes, as for planning purposes these cannot be considered as affordable housing....leaving 55% for the market

More details about Rep ID: 4362

Representation ID: 4266

COMMENT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

The percentage of market housing included in such schemes will depend on local circumstances, but a maximum of 25% would probably be fair.

More details about Rep ID: 4266

Representation ID: 4163

OBJECT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

We do not support RE2.

More details about Rep ID: 4163

Representation ID: 4159

OBJECT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

I do not support RE2 it is too woolly and open to abuse

More details about Rep ID: 4159

Representation ID: 3994

COMMENT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

35% affordable housing 10% starter homes, as for planning purposes these cannot be considered as affordable housing....leaving 55% for the market.

More details about Rep ID: 3994

Representation ID: 3671

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Seems sensible below 10%.

More details about Rep ID: 3671

Representation ID: 3435

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

35% affordable housing 10% starter homes, as for planning purposes these cannot be considered as affordable housing....leaving 55% for the market.

More details about Rep ID: 3435

Representation ID: 3419

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

Very real concerns were expressed by the Parish Council over the option RE2. As expressed by the consultation document, the rural areas have already borne a disproportionate share of the additional housing in recent years. RE2 suggests that this might increase if the District Councils were placed under pressure by adjacent under delivering councils or a lack of brown field sites in the more urban parts of the region becoming available. From every perspective the Parish Council felt the urban areas should be prioritised for development.

More details about Rep ID: 3419

Representation ID: 3245

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

This will depend on the cost of the development. The number of affordable houses should be maximised where local need indicates this is necessary.

More details about Rep ID: 3245

Representation ID: 2978

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

Each site would have to be looked individually . A blanket percentage is not appropriate for these sites.

More details about Rep ID: 2978

Representation ID: 2865

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2865

Representation ID: 2787

COMMENT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

25%

More details about Rep ID: 2787

Representation ID: 2616

SUPPORT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council supports RE2 with open market property in the region of 25%.

More details about Rep ID: 2616

Representation ID: 2403

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

If RE2 is taken forward, the percentage of market housing allowed should be agreed individually for each site depending on local need.

More details about Rep ID: 2403

Representation ID: 1923

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

As much as is necessary and sufficient to make the development marginally viable.

More details about Rep ID: 1923

Representation ID: 1818

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Probably no more than 20%.

More details about Rep ID: 1818

Representation ID: 1753

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Probably no more than 20%.

More details about Rep ID: 1753

Representation ID: 1712

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

50%

More details about Rep ID: 1712

Representation ID: 1404

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

25%

More details about Rep ID: 1404

Representation ID: 1246

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

0%

More details about Rep ID: 1246

Representation ID: 1195

COMMENT Simon Bell

Summary:

15% of total habitable rooms within the development on the basis that such sites are rural exceptions to accommodate key rural workers, therefore the level of market participation should be small. Generally such sites would have a sponsor who will be funding the development and policy should therefore limit the level of profitability from the development.

More details about Rep ID: 1195

Representation ID: 1136

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Varies by economic area, setting maximum and indeed minimum percentages across the board removes local flexibilty.

More details about Rep ID: 1136

Representation ID: 950

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

50%

More details about Rep ID: 950

Representation ID: 807

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

Summary:

Seems sensible, say up to 80%

More details about Rep ID: 807

Representation ID: 643

COMMENT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC considers that a flat % is wrong. The % should vary depending on the type of market housing permitted.

At extremes - 5 bed detached should be no ore than10% - 2/3 bed bungalows should be 60% in order to help free up housing stock in areas with large populations of more elderly persons.

More details about Rep ID: 643

Representation ID: 280

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

50% to help bring forward sites (which have been lacking)

More details about Rep ID: 280

Representation ID: 115

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

As this is likely to be very small scale developments of four or five houses then 50% would seem appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 115

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

Powered by OpusConsult