01.11

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 20813

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr T Richardson

Agent: Wilson Wraight

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Paragraph 1.11 needs revisiting because it is not clear what point the Council is trying to make. Poor rates of annual housing delivery in Babergh and Mid Suffolk have resulted in significant unplanned development across the authority since 2014.

The Council needs to be clear on this position because it will be challenged at the Examination stage. Failure to address it in an open and transparent way will leave the Council open to claims that the tests of soundness have not been met, as set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.11 needs revisiting because it is not clear what point the Council is trying to make. Poor rates of annual housing delivery in Babergh and Mid Suffolk have resulted in significant unplanned development across the authority since 2014. There are numerous examples of planning refusals being overturned at appeal. The Council must reflect on and acknowledge this failing if the strategy set out in the new Plan is to have any chance of succeeding. Moreover, the Council needs to be clear on this position because it will be challenged at the Examination stage. Failure to address it in an open and transparent way will leave the Council open to claims that the tests of soundness have not been met, as set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 20926

Received: 21/12/2020

Respondent: Hyde Parker Farms

Agent: Wilson Wraight

Representation:

Poor rates of annual housing delivery in Babergh and Mid Suffolk have resulted in significant unplanned development across the authority since 2014. There are numerous examples of planning refusals being overturned at appeal. The Councils must reflect on and acknowledge this failing if the strategy set out in the new Plan is to have any chance of succeeding. Failure to address it in an open and transparent way will leave the Councils open to claims that the tests of soundness have not been met, as set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.11 needs revisiting because it is not clear what point the Councils are trying to make. Poor rates of annual housing delivery in Babergh and Mid Suffolk have resulted in significant unplanned development across the authority since 2014. There are numerous examples of planning refusals being overturned at appeal. The Councils must reflect on and acknowledge this failing if the strategy set out in the new Plan is to have any chance of succeeding. Moreover, the Councils need to be clear on this position because it will be challenged at the Examination stage. Failure to address it in an open and transparent way will leave the Councils open to claims that the tests of soundness have not been met, as set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 21126

Received: 23/12/2020

Respondent: Sudbury Area Green Belt Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

We challenge the figures given for “low” delivery since 2014, and for a “high” annual rate from 2018. Babergh has 4,000 unbuilt permissions, and meets its 5-year supply, construction is imminent at Chilton Woods with 1,150 dwellings, and Lichfields state average delivery in the last 3 years has exceeded the current requirement by 379 to 300. Regarding the increased target of the Current Standard Method, Lichfields give this as 416, which is 10% more than 379, not 35%. We challenge why in the Housing Trajectory bar chart in Appendix 01, the future completions should be higher than the target.

Change suggested by respondent:

Reconsider the figures given for “low” delivery since 2014, and for a “high” annual rate from 2018.

Full text:

We challenge the figures given for “low” delivery since 2014, and for a “high” annual rate from 2018. Babergh has 4,000 unbuilt permissions, and meets its 5-year supply, construction is imminent at Chilton Woods with 1,150 dwellings, and Lichfields state average delivery in the last 3 years has exceeded the current requirement by 379 to 300. Regarding the increased target of the Current Standard Method, Lichfields give this as 416, which is 10% more than 379, not 35%. We challenge why in the Housing Trajectory bar chart in Appendix 01, the future completions should be higher than the target.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 21144

Received: 23/12/2020

Respondent: Bridgemount Farms

Agent: Wilson Wraight

Representation:

Paragraph 1.11 needs revisiting because it is not clear what point the Councils are trying to make in relation to delivery issues. Poor rates of annual housing delivery in Babergh and Mid Suffolk have resulted in significant unplanned development across the authority since 2014. The Councils need to be clear on this position because it will be challenged at the Examination stage. Failure to address it in an open and transparent way will leave the Councils open to claims that the tests of soundness have not been met, as set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.11 needs revisiting because it is not clear what point the Councils are trying to make in relation to delivery issues. Poor rates of annual housing delivery in Babergh and Mid Suffolk have resulted in significant unplanned development across the authority since 2014. There are numerous examples of planning refusals being overturned at appeal. The Councils must reflect on and acknowledge this failing if the strategy set out in the new Plan is to have any chance of succeeding. Moreover, the Councils need to be clear on this position because it will be challenged at the Examination stage. Failure to address it in an open and transparent way will leave the Councils open to claims that the tests of soundness have not been met, as set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 21903

Received: 22/12/2020

Respondent: Cllr John Hinton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

01.11 Page 6 talks of A14 improvements but there is no mention of the A12 which is an equally important transport corridor.
As a comment we have a surfit of planning permissions granted but no way to “encourage” / force developers to implement them before grtanting further option.

SEE ATTACHED

Full text:

See attached full submission

Attachments: