MM59.

LP 24 encourages high quality design, but such words in themselves will not achieve the required outcomes, without greater clarity around what high quality design means in practice and how proposed new development will be assessed in meeting this requirement.

LP24 encourages high quality design, but such words in themselves will not achieve the required outcomes, without greater clarity around what high quality design means in practice and how proposed new development will be assessed in meeting this requirement.

The Parish Council notes the inclusion of requirements to meet part M4(2) .

See full representation

Pigeon considers that this policy remains restrictive and seeks to apply a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the design of schemes. The absence of any wording in the policy to the enhancement of the existing character and context is at odds with the requirements of the NPPF at paragraph 130 (c). Here it states that planning policies should ensure that all developments are sympathetic to local character and history…whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. As worded, the policy currently seeks to safeguard the existing character and context, which is in direct conflict with the NPPF.

There remains the requirement for a scheme of any size to undertake a design review, if of exceptional design and/or it is located in a sensitive area/landscape. The requirement to undertake a design review and adherence to the Building for Life Criteria is however considered onerous.

There is no indication of the costs involved and the implications for the viability of development by including such requirements. Therefore, Pigeon raises an objection with the current wording of the Policy LP24 on the basis that it is not ‘justified’.

Furthermore, the policy has been modified to require that at least 50% of dwellings will meet the requirements under part M4(2) of the Building Regulations, unless viability evidence demonstrates otherwise. This requirement is much more onerous than the former criterion 1(f) and like other parts of this policy, does not recognise the implications of including such requirements on the viability of development. The JLP and its supporting evidence base does not provide any justification for setting the requirement at 50%, save for reference in the supporting paragraphs to the policy (15.50) to the fact that the SHMA identifies that there will be an increase of people with accessibility needs across the Districts during the Plan period. This does not constitute tangible evidence to justify the imposition of this requirement of the policy and as such, this part of the policy should be removed.

Pigeon is concerned that the imposition of such standards as set out in Policy LP24 will have an impact upon the delivery of housing developments. The Policy requirements are considered to be overly prescriptive and the need for such standards does not appear to be robustly justified by evidence.

Persimmon do not dispute the aspiration to ensure new and existing homes are able to meet the
lifetime needs of occupiers as far as possible. However, the approach taken in Policy LP24 of
requiring new major housing developments to ensure 50% of new homes are built to meet the
optional requirements for accessible and adaptable dwellings under Part M4(2) of Building
Regulations remains unsound, as previously raised in representations to Policy LP06 where this
requirement was contained. The Councils have not provided the required evidence demonstrating
a need for this optional requirement to be applied at this threshold, as required by the NPPF.
Persimmon therefore maintain that the Councils need to provide further evidence in support of
this policy, as outlined above and discussed in detail in previous representations.

Identifying and addressing the health requirements of existing and new development is a critical way of ensuring the delivery of healthy, safe, and inclusive communities. On this basis, NHSPS supports the changes made in Policy LP24 2.e but further recommend additional wording to include and consider ‘Healthy Planning’.
For the reasons outlined above, we recommend that the wording of Policy LP24 be amended as follows:
(2) e. “Adhere to the Building for a Healthy Life design assessment framework and include good practice in healthy design principles. Non-householder schemes of exceptional design and/or development within a sensitive area/landscape will be required to undertake a design review to test incorporation of good and healthy design principles.”

Section 2e of Policy LP24 Design and Residential Amenity under Main Modification No. MM59 states that in order to achieve development of high-quality design, development proposals should adhere to and incorporate good practice in design from the Building for a Healthy Life design framework, and particularly for non-householder schemes of exceptional design within sensitive areas these must incorporate good design principles. NHSPS supports Policy LP24 but recommends further amendments.

There is a well-established connection between planning and health, and the planning system has an important role in creating healthy communities. The planning system is critical not only to the provision of improved health services and infrastructure, enabling health providers to meet changing healthcare needs, but also to addressing the wider determinants of health.
The NPPF is clear in stating that “Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places” (Paragraph 92).

Identifying and addressing the health requirements of existing and new development is a critical way of ensuring the delivery of healthy, safe, and inclusive communities. On this basis, NHSPS supports the changes made in Policy LP24 2.e but further recommend additional wording to include and consider ‘Healthy Planning’.

For the reasons outlined above, we recommend that the wording of Policy LP24 be amended as follows:
(2) e. “Adhere to the Building for a Healthy Life design assessment framework and include good practice in healthy design principles. Non-householder schemes of exceptional design and/or development within a sensitive area/landscape will be required to undertake a design review to test incorporation of good and healthy design principles.”

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 …

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 …”

Please see attached document.

Please see attached document.

We object to this Modification, specifically the introduction of criterion l which requires at least 50% of dwellings to meet Part M4(2) Building Regulations in respect of accessibility and adaptability of dwellings as it is not justified. There is no apparent evidence base to justify the percentage requirement, and it does not appear that this requirement has been taken into consideration in the Plan-level viability testing. Whilst it is acknowledged that the policy would allow for site-specific viability assessment to secure reductions in this requirement, the starting point for the policy requirement should be tested to ensure that it is viable in most instances. Furthermore, the requirement to “convincingly demonstrate” that the requirement is not viable is not consistent with the NPPF, and the introduction of a need to ‘convince’ brings subjectivity and a lack of clarity.

"Convincingly demonstrated" should be deleted from the Plan in 2l)
"Convincingly demonstrate" is subjective and descriptive and is not appropriate for inclusion in a planning policy.
There is no definition or explanation as to how the LPAs will apply the word "convincingly" in the context of a viability appraisal.

see attached for full submission

MM59: Policy LP26 (now LP24)
SCC welcomes the changes to this policy and considers it sound. The policy sets out clear instructions to developers with regard to creating healthy places. In particular, SCC supports the requirement for development to follow Dementia-Friendly Design Principles, where appropriate, and the requirement for development to adhere to the Building for a Healthy Life design assessment framework. SCC also welcomes the requirement for at least 50% of dwellings to meet the M4(2) standard and supports the requirement for the creation of walkable neighbourhoods.

The second element of criterion 3 should therefore be deleted to achieve a sound and justified policy.

The parties welcome the proposed modifications to Policy LP24 (previously Policy LP06) which
now makes allowance for site viability to be taken into account with respect to the requirement
for at least 50% of dwellings to be built to Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations. However, the
parties remain concerned that the modification is not sufficient in addressing the issues previously
raised.
As stated in the parties’ Matter 5 Hearing Statement, it is considered that the requirement to
provide 50% Part M4(2) dwellings is not justified, with there being no evidence provided of a
special need in the Districts for this level of requirement. This evidence needs to be provided for
the JLP to be in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which
states at footnote 46 that optional Building Regulations standards (such as Part M4(2)) may be
applied where this would address an identified need for such properties. The parties understand
and support the need to ensure homes are built to meet the needs of residents, however these
needs have not been evidenced in a sufficient manner and further work is needed for the policy
to be sound and in alignment with national policy.
Previous representations by the parties raised concerns regarding the wording of criterion 3 of
Policy LP24 (previously Policy LP26). Although flexibility has now been introduced to the first part
of criterion 3, which is welcomed, the second part of this criterion remains the same: “Development which fails to maintain and improve the quality and character of the area
will not be supported”
The parties therefore re-iterate previously stated concerns about the soundness of this part of the
policy, as it continues to apply a wholly subjective requirement. There are no controls within the
policy clarifying how developments will be assessed against this policy requirement, nor is there
any clarification on how a consistent approach will be applied across different developments and
application. The parties consider that criterions 1 and 2 of Policy LP24 are sufficient for ensuring
the design of development is appropriately assessed in line with national policy. The second
element of criterion 3 should therefore be deleted to achieve a sound and justified policy.

Please see attached full document.

Please see attached full document.

1.1. Main Modification 59 proposes the additional requirement under criterion l) to “Provide at
least 50% of dwellings which meet the requirements for accessible and adaptable
dwellings under Part M4(2) of Building Regulations (or any relevant regulation that
supersedes and replaces). Where site viability issues exist, proposals must be supported
by a viability assessment which convincingly demonstrates what the maximum viable
contribution for accessible and adaptable dwellings is.”
1.2. We note this was previously proposed under Policy LP06 ‘Mix and type of composition’
however this policy is now proposed to be deleted under proposed Main Modification 34.
1.3. In respect of this requirement, as considered within the Councils supporting evidence
base report, Aspinall Verdi Plan Viability & CIL Review Study (October 2020) it is stated
that “£521 per dwelling has been applied” to the modelling for adaptable dwellings under
Part M4 (2) of the building regulations. It explains that this cost is based on the DCLG
Housing Standards Review, Final Implementation Impact Assessment, March 2015,
paragraphs 153 and 157. The report recognises that Policy LP06 has the potential to
have a high impact on viability.
1.4. Support is given to the inclusion of a proposed viability clause within Policy LP24 as it is
reflective of the Councils supporting viability evidence base. The requirement for this to
‘convincingly demonstrate’ what the maximum viable contribution for such dwellings is however subjective and lacks clarity.

Please see attached full document

Please see attached full document