MM8.

Can a uniform figure of 35% affordable housing be justified for both Babergh and Mid-Suffolk given the different local housing need in each area? Is there evidence from previous affordable housing completions to demonstrate that the 35% figure makes the correct allowance for completions that do not result in affordable housing?

Sp02, 5.' An appropriate financial contribution in lieu' will not contribute the provision of affordable housing and this condition should not be allowed.

Could the period in Table 4 and Table 5 be harmonised with the plan period such that the figures for the number of affordable houses are the same as those given on Page 32 SP08 (MM8).

A threshold should be provided and then maintained ie not then a subject for further negotiation or special circumstances.

We would support the reduced 25% threshold contribution for brownfield sites. Previous local development of a brown field site commenced with the threshold of 35% affordable housing which was then challenged and whittled down due to developer claimed costs of the “dirty site”.

A threshold should be provided and then maintained ie not then a subject for further negotiation or special circumstances.

The statement regarding financial contribution should be clarified as per above comment.

Additionally the council should make a statement that the monies provided will be used to construct the afordable homes, ideally within a given time period.

The clause allows for 'an appropriate financial contribution in lieu' if the affordable housing provision cannot be met. It must be clear that this will include all costs associated with the provision of these homes elsewhere, including obtaining permissions, purchase of land and construction.

Stradbroke Parish Council notes that the revised wording makes the policy clearer and understandable.

Therefore, as concluded by Pegasus in their Housing Need Report at Appendix 1, the housing requirement needs to be increased to ensure that sufficient provision is made for the required market housing. Accordingly, the minimum housing need for the two authorities should be for at least 19,247 new homes comprising 8,132 in Babergh and 11,115 in Mid Suffolk as identified by the Council’s own evidence base.

For the reasons set out above, Pigeon continues to advocate that Policy SP02 is not considered to be sound as it is not ‘justified’, taking into account reasonable alternatives or consistent with National Policy. Pigeon therefore object to Part ‘1’ of the Policy as currently worded and would strongly urge the Councils to therefore reconsider their approach, in particular to the overall housing requirement, to ensure that sufficient levels of both market and affordable housing are delivered over the Plan period.

We note that the modifications to Policy SP02 are limited to a re-ordering of the policy wording and inclusion of criteria concerning delivery and location of affordable housing. Therefore, as modified, Policy SP02 still requires a 35% requirement for affordable housing on relevant sites of ten or more dwellings or sites of 0.5 ha or more.

Whilst Pigeon continues to support this figure in principle, for the reasons previously given, this requirement will impact on the residential market component available to meet minimum housing requirements. As such, the minimum housing requirement for the two authorities should be for at least 19,247 new homes comprising 8,132 in Babergh and 11,115 in Mid Suffolk as identified by the Council’s own evidence base. Furthermore, the Councils should consider a buffer of 20% in order to provide flexibility and contingency to the delivery of housing within the Districts.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment – Partial Part 2 Update, January 2019 (SHMA), assesses the need for affordable housing in the context of the standard method. In Figure 7.1 the SHMA identifies a need for 73.2% of new housing in Babergh to be in the market sector, with the remaining 26.8% in the affordable sector. In Mid Suffolk, Figure 3 identifies a need for 77.3% to be in the market sector and the remaining 22.7% in the affordable sector.

Using the evidenced minimum housing requirement of 19,247 new homes as set out in these representations to meet the minimum identified need in the SHMA, this equates to 428 homes per annum in Babergh and 585 homes per annum in Mid Suffolk. Applying the need for market and affordable housing in paragraph 3.12 above to these figures generates an evidenced need for:
• 313 market homes per annum in Babergh;
• 115 affordable homes per annum in Babergh;
• 452 market homes per annum in Mid Suffolk;
• 133 affordable homes per annum in Mid Suffolk;
• A total of 765 market homes per annum across the Plan area; and
• A total of 248 affordable homes per annum across the Plan area.

The proposed delivery of 2,096 affordable homes in Babergh of the total proposed housing requirement of 7,904 new homes indicates that 5,808 market homes will be provided in Babergh as compared to the need for 5,953 (73.2% of 8,132 new homes).

Similarly, the proposed delivery of 2,428 affordable homes in Mid Suffolk of the total proposed housing requirement of 10,165 new homes indicates that 7,737 market homes will be provided in Mid Suffolk as compared to the need for 8,592 (73.2% of 11,115 new homes).

This demonstrates that that the JLP does not plan to address the need for market housing by a considerable margin particularly in Mid Suffolk. The combination of Policy SP02 and the incorrectly calculated housing requirement results in an under-delivery of affordable housing and a significant under-delivery of the required level of market housing identified by the evidence base.

As a result of the proposed unjustified constraint on market housing, there will be fewer opportunities for those capable of accessing such housing to do so, and this is likely to have a further adverse effect on affordability. The likely consequence of this is that it will increase the number of households falling into affordable need as they are unable to access the constrained supply of market accommodation. This is wholly unsustainable.

Therefore, as concluded by Pegasus in their Housing Need Report at Appendix 1, the housing requirement needs to be increased to ensure that sufficient provision is made for the required market housing. Accordingly, the minimum housing need for the two authorities should be for at least 19,247 new homes comprising 8,132 in Babergh and 11,115 in Mid Suffolk as identified by the Council’s own evidence base.

For the reasons set out above, Pigeon continues to advocate that Policy SP02 is not considered to be sound as it is not ‘justified’, taking into account reasonable alternatives or consistent with National Policy. Pigeon therefore object to Part ‘1’ of the Policy as currently worded and would strongly urge the Councils to therefore reconsider their approach, in particular to the overall housing requirement, to ensure that sufficient levels of both market and affordable housing are delivered over the Plan period.

Please see attached document

Please see attached document

On behalf of our clients, George Durrant & Sons welcomes the simplification of this policy, in particular the loss of differentiation of affordable housing requirement according to district. The threshold for affordable housing is also now in line with the NPPF. We would highlight that it could prove difficult to enforce number 7, particularly with regard to the notion of 'related ownership', given many rural land holdings are in the same families but in reality no relationship exists.

Dear Sir/ Madam
Response by the Home Builders Federation to the Main modifications of Babergh and
Mid Suffolk Local Plan
1. Please find below the Home Builders Federation (HBF) response to the consultation on
the Main Modifications to the Local Plan. The HBF is the principal representative body
of the housebuilding industry in England and Wales and our representations reflect the
views of discussions with our membership of national and multinational corporations
through to regional developers and small local housebuilders. Our members account for
over 80% of all new housing built in England and Wales in any one year.
MM1
Modification is unsound as it lacks clarity as required by paragraph 16 of the NPPF and is
not effective.
2. The HBF recognise the importance of having a plan in place to support development and
that the only way to achieve this would be through a two-part local plan. However, we
are concerned that whilst the councils have committed to delivering a part 2 local plan
there is no policy committing the council to a timetable and no consequences should any
proposed timetable not be achieved. At the very least a timetable should be included in
the local plan as to when the part 2 local plan will be submitted for examination in order
to ensure that the proposed modification is effective and can be monitored.
MM8
3. The HBF supports the modification to reduce the contributions for affordable on
brownfield sites which better reflects the approach advocated in paragraph 59 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
MM50
Modification is unsound as it is inconsistent with government policy or effective.
4. Reference needs to be made in the policy or supporting text to the transition period for
the introduction of the mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). At the time of
examination, it was intended that it would apply to all development from November 2023.
However, the Government have confirmed in its response to the recent consultation on
regulations and implementation of BNG1
this period has been extended to April 2024 for
small developments of less than 10 units or under 0.5 ha. The Council must be clear that
the 10% BNG will apply from these dates as set out in the Act and its supporting
regulations. In addition, the Government’s response also sets out its intention with
regards to exemptions and as such a statement confirming that the Council will deliver
mandatory requirements for BNG in line with the Environment Act would provide the
necessary clarity for applicants and decision makers.
5. The Council are also proposing to amend part 2 subsection e to state that the Council
will seek appropriate resources from developers for monitoring of biodiversity net gains.
The HBF consider it necessary that this reference to monitoring should be amended and
the statement that appropriate resources will be sought from developers for the
monitoring of biodiversity net gain. Whilst in some circumstances the most appropriate
way forward may be in the form of a payment, there may be other approaches to
monitoring of delivery that do not require a financial contribution. For example, where
BNG are secured through a conservation covenant the Government have stated in the
recent consultation2
that this is to be included in the price of the units and as such an
additional contribution would not be required. To ensure that there is sufficient flexibility n the policy we would suggest the following wording which is more consistent with that
used by Government in their response to the recent consultation.
“Monitoring of biodiversity net gains will be proportionate and where appropriate set out
as a planning condition or obligation”.
MM57
Modification is unsound as it is not needed as it is an unnecessary repetition of national policy
and lacks the necessary clarity required by the NPPF.
6. Rather than amend Part 2a of policy LP25 the HBF would recommend that it is deleted
as it is not necessary to repeat building regulations nor state that future iterations of said
regulations should be adhered to. These are mandatory standards that are delivered
outside of the planning system and as such do not need to be repeated. The same
applies to subsequent regulations and there is no need to stipulate that these will also
need to be met. Whilst their inclusion may not be considered problematic at present there
is the potential for the misapplication of future policy if any technical standards are
optional and require the Council to justify their inclusion though the local plan. Whilst we
recognise this is a hypothetical situation decision makers could potentially seek to apply
future optional standards without the necessary process for their adoption being
undertaken.
7. The HBF are concerned that the wording of part e could still lead to decision makers
asking for viability evidence to show that the most viable and feasible level of low carbon
energy is provided on site. The HBF recognise that this should be a consideration but
the viability or feasibility considerations should relate to its provision or not rather than
maximisation of onsite renewable energy provision. We would suggest the policy
amended to read:
“Onsite renewable and other low carbon energy generation will be required where viable
and feasible.”
8. The HBF still consider part f to be unsound. The 100 litres per person per day (lpppd)
water unsound as it goes beyond the optional technical standard in paragraph 56-014 of
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). NPPF states at paragraph 154 that technical
standards relating to sustainable buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for
national technical standards and should be set at the 110 lpppd option standard of PPG.
MM59
Modification is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy.
9. Part 2e requires developers to adhere to Building for Healthy Life framework. Whilst the
HBF is supportive of the use of Building for a Healthy Life the policy as written is too
prescriptive and requires development to adhere to a framework set out side of the local
plan making process. We would suggest that this is amended to “take account of…” or
“have regard to …”

We object to the proposed revision to point 4 of Policy SP02, to change the wording from ‘evidenced and justified’ to ‘convincingly demonstrated’ in respect of the viability of providing policy-compliant affordable housing as it is not consistent with the NPPF, which at paragraph 63 requires ‘robust justification’ for any deviation from on-site provision of affordable housing. It is not clear why this wording change is proposed, and the introduction of a need to ‘convince’ brings subjectivity and a lack of clarity.

We object to the proposed revision to point 4 of Policy SP02, to change the wording from ‘evidenced and justified’ to ‘convincingly demonstrated’ in respect of the viability of providing policy-compliant affordable housing as it is not consistent with the NPPF, which at paragraph 63 requires ‘robust justification’ for any deviation from on-site provision of affordable housing. It is not clear why this wording change is proposed, and the introduction of a need to ‘convince’ brings subjectivity and a lack of clarity.

Delete "convincingly"
Policy wording now proposed for deletion was more appropriate ie. needing a viability case to be justified and evidenced.

see attached for full submission

Please see attached document.

For
matters of soundness however, the requirement should be justified through an update of the
evidence base.

Modifications to Policy SP02 are welcomed in that clarification is now provided that viability
matters will be taken into account and off-site contributions accepted where on-site delivery is
not viable. However, the policy continues to include subjective wording in relation to the
requirement to ‘convincingly demonstrate’ that provision of the required affordable housing is
not viable. As viability is the determining means, the ambiguous text should be deleted.
In addition, the aim of delivering 2,096 affordable homes (equating to a requirement for greenfield
sites to deliver 35% affordable housing) over the plan period in Babergh does not align with the
needs identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA, EH05). The parties have no
issues with delivering 35% affordable housing, and indeed have planned to deliver that level of
provision given the shortfall in affordable housing that has been identified for Hadleigh. For
matters of soundness however, the requirement should be justified through an update of the
evidence base. The datedness of the SHMA makes this especially important, as in the context of
the cost of living crisis, the need to ensure access to affordable housing is significant.
Representations previously made by the parties on this policy should be referred to.

Please see attached full document.

Please see attached full document