MM7.

Object

Representation ID: 22462

Received: 27/04/2023

Respondent: Sproughton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Shared ownership should be the last option. The first should be discounted rent or discounted purchase as these are reliable methods of keeping affordable housing affordable into the future.

Object

Representation ID: 22691

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Strongly object to first new paragraph to be inserted after 7.11 because
This conflicts with SP02 which requires the tenure to be informed by a District needs assessment.
The text conflicts with the SHMA, which Tables 4 and 5 make clear the SHMA identified a need for more than just shared ownership and social/affordable rent.
It is not contained within policy SP02 and therefore should have no effect on affordable housing tenure. However, the Councils will undoubtedly apply it as if it were policy.
This approach is a hangover from a housing need assessment in 2003. Its application now, in light of the SHMA, is plainly inappropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 22692

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

The amended text refers to communities being able to produce their own up to date robust local housing needs surveys. Artisan suggests that the text is further amended to refer to developers who may also want to produce evidence of local need through surveys.

Object

Representation ID: 22693

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

In the final paragraph, viability is discussed. A development is either viable or it is not. A viability assessment will demonstrate that a development is viable or not. There is no need for the word "convincingly'' to be before demonstrate as this implies there is a higher, unspecified threshold that applicants will be expected to meet. Before an applicant proceeds in spending thousands of pounds on a viability assessment, they will want the requirements to be clear, transparent and for there to be some degree of certainty that the Councils 'will' accept the conclusions as opposed to 'may'. Accordingly, Artisan objects to the words "convincingly" and "may''.

Object

Representation ID: 22814

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Boyer Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

We also note the addition of the phrase “convincingly demonstrated” to paragraph 07.11 and Policy SP02 point 4. It is unclear what is meant by convincingly demonstrated and its implementation in decision making. We believe the use of “convincingly” is too ambiguous and can be used to request evidence beyond what would be reasonable to ask for. We suggest the word “convincingly” is removed from the policy and supporting text to ensure that the requirement is effective and is only used to require appropriate evidence and justification in accordance with the tests of soundness outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 22918

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

We also note the addition of the phrase “convincingly demonstrated” to paragraph 07.11 and Policy SP02 point 4. It is unclear what is meant by convincingly demonstrated and its implementation in decision making. We believe the use of “convincingly” is too ambiguous and can be used to request evidence beyond what would be reasonable to ask for. We suggest the word “convincingly” is removed from the policy and supporting text to ensure that the requirement is effective and is only used to require appropriate evidence and justification in accordance with the tests of soundness outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework

Object

Representation ID: 22949

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

We also note the addition of the phrase “convincingly demonstrated” to paragraph 07.11 and Policy SP02 point 4. It is unclear what is meant by convincingly demonstrated and its implementation in decision making. We believe the use of “convincingly” is too ambiguous and can be used to request evidence beyond what would be reasonable to ask for. We suggest the word “convincingly” is removed from the policy and supporting text to ensure that the requirement is effective and is only used to require appropriate evidence and justification in accordance with the tests of soundness outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework