MM73.

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

Joint Local Plan Main Modifications

Representation ID: 22682

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Whilst Pigeon welcomes a Policy concerning developer contributions and obligations, Pigeon continues to raise an objection to the current wording of the Policy on the basis that the Policy is not ‘justified’. Pigeon questions the need for parts of this policy as they are addressed in policy SP08.

Change suggested by respondent:

See full representation

Full text:

Pigeon would suggest that Part ‘2’ of this Policy repeats Part ‘3’ of policy SP08 and is therefore not necessary. As per Pigeon’s representation to Policy SP08, reference is now made to ‘other’ development contributions. This modification has however not addressed Pigeon’s objection, which was that reference to Developer Contributions as well as Planning Obligations was an unnecessary tautology, as they are clearly both the same thing. Therefore, it is necessary for Part ‘2’ to be removed so as to avoid repetition of policies, or at the very least reference to Developer Contributions should be removed from the policy wording. Pigeon is of the view that adding ‘other’ also makes this policy unclear.

Support

Joint Local Plan Main Modifications

Representation ID: 22844

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation Summary:

The removal of previous point 1 of Policy LP32 Developer Contributions and Planning
Obligations is supported as the point was repeating other policies, which we commented on
in our Regulation 19 consultation response.

Full text:

Please see attached document.

Object

Joint Local Plan Main Modifications

Representation ID: 22845

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Boyer Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In our response we also raised the point that the policy text should acknowledge the crossboundary
nature of proposals such as Wolsey Grange 2, and other sites in the Ipswich Fringe. The policy text should also detail how BMSDC will work with neighbouring authorities
and service providers such as Suffolk County Council.

Full text:

Please see attached document.

Support

Joint Local Plan Main Modifications

Representation ID: 22937

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation Summary:

The removal of previous point 1 of Policy LP32 Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations is supported as the point was repeating other policies, which we commented on
in our Regulation 19 consultation response.

Full text:

Please see attached full document.

Object

Joint Local Plan Main Modifications

Representation ID: 22938

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Endurance Estates Land Promotion Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Not all proposals for development will be required to enter into a planning obligation. The National Planning Policy Framework reiterates the provision of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, that planning obligations must only be sought where they meet the following tests: Not all proposals for development will be required to enter into a planning obligation. The National Planning Policy Framework reiterates the provision of Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, that planning obligations must only be sought where they meet the following tests:

Change suggested by respondent:

Suggested policy wording:
“Planning proposals will need to have regard to the Councils’ Infrastructure Delivery Plan
and any responses to the proposals from infrastructure providers. When making planning
decisions, regard will be given to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the consultation
responses received from infrastructure providers and the associated Plan evidence base.
Applicants are required to mitigate the additional impacts their development will place on
infrastructure through Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
contributions to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms.
The delivery of planned growth set out in The Plan is dependent upon the availability of infrastructure to support it. The required infrastructure will be provided through a
combination of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Planning Obligations, other
Developer Contributions and where appropriate, funding assistance from the Councils /
other provider organisations. Planning applications will be expected to include
appropriate infrastructure provision. The nature, scale and phasing of any planning
obligations and/or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions sought will be
related to the form of the development and its potential impact upon the surrounding area.
Applicants shall adhere to the relevant documents Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the
Infrastructure Funding Statements endorsed by the Councils detailing the types and
priorities of infrastructure provision required for the Districts.

Full text:

Not all proposals for development will be required to enter into a planning obligation. The
National Planning Policy Framework reiterates the provision of Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, that planning obligations must only be
sought where they meet the following tests:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
1.2. This is reflected at proposed paragraphs 16.21 and 16.22.
1.3. Suggested policy wording:
“Planning proposals will need to have regard to the Councils’ Infrastructure Delivery Plan
and any responses to the proposals from infrastructure providers. When making planning
decisions, regard will be given to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the consultation
responses received from infrastructure providers and the associated Plan evidence base.
Applicants are required to mitigate the additional impacts their development will place on
infrastructure through Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
contributions to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms.
The delivery of planned growth set out in The Plan is dependent upon the availability of infrastructure to support it. The required infrastructure will be provided through a
combination of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Planning Obligations, other
Developer Contributions and where appropriate, funding assistance from the Councils /
other provider organisations. Planning applications will be expected to include
appropriate infrastructure provision. The nature, scale and phasing of any planning
obligations and/or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions sought will be
related to the form of the development and its potential impact upon the surrounding area.
Applicants shall adhere to the relevant documents Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the
Infrastructure Funding Statements endorsed by the Councils detailing the types and
priorities of infrastructure provision required for the Districts.

Support

Joint Local Plan Main Modifications

Representation ID: 22966

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation Summary:

The removal of previous point 1 of Policy LP32 Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations is supported as the point was repeating other policies, which we commented on
in our Regulation 19 consultation response.

Full text:

Please see attached full document