B&MSDC Supplementary Planning Documents Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 23594

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: Pigeon

Agent: Pigeon

- Approach to Open Market Mix - 2.1.5 :
Paragraph 2.1.5 states that the “Ipswich Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2017 with a partial update in 2019) (‘SHMA’) currently represents the relevant District-wide assessment. The SHMA sets out, in Part 2, the district-wide requirements for different unit sizes of open market homes in respect of bedrooms” which is then listed in a table.

Although, the SHMA may present an appropriate
‘starting point’, given its age (it is now 5 years old) and
the fact that it represents a snapshot in time, we would
suggest that it is inappropriate to use this as the basis
for an overly prescriptive housing mix requirement.
The SPD should provide suitable flexibility to allow
housing mix to be agreed on a site-by-site basis taking
into account all requirements, including the site’s
context.

Furthermore, we would suggest that the Council
provides information on when the evidence base will
be refreshed, given the date of the SHMA, which was
published in 2019. Although it should be noted that
any guidance on housing mix will need to provide
sufficient flexibility given the time limited nature of any
housing market/needs assessment and the likelihood
that this will change over time.

- Preferred Affordable Housing Mix - 2.2.9 :
Paragraph 2.2.9 says that “The Councils’ current
preferred tenures to be secured via planning
obligations are affordable rent and shared ownership,
which the SHMA has identified as being the most
needed tenures in the Districts. Units delivered at a
social rent (as opposed to an affordable rent) will be
considered a benefit but will not necessarily be
accepted if the tenure proposed is to the detriment of
the total number of affordable homes on a given site.”

We would suggest that this requires further
clarification as the guidance as currently drafted is
unclear as to what the Councils’ preferred tenures are.
Currently, it says that affordable rent and shared
ownership are preferred yet it says that social rent will
be considered a benefit.

Notwithstanding, it is important that the SPD allows for
the full range of affordable tenures as set out in the
NPPF.

- Preferred Affordable Housing Mix - 2.2.10 :
Paragraph 2.2.10 describes the Council’s preference of
agreeing “an affordable housing mix before an application is submitted, via pre-application advice.” While we would typically seek pre-application advice before submitting an application, we do not consider that this should be a mandatory requirement, as draft para 2.2.10 implies.

It should also be noted that there will be instances
where the affordable housing mix is not a consideration, for example, an outline application where the housing mix is not being determined.

-Preferred Affordable Housing Mix - 2.2.15 :
In Paragraph 2.2.15 the Councils state that “early consultation with Housing Officers is strongly recommended so that affordable housing requirements can be established as part of the formal pre-application process.” Whilst we would typically engage with the Councils Housing Officers at the preapplication stage, as per our comments in respect of 2.2.10. this should not be a mandatory requirement, particularly where housing mix is not being determined, as is the case with an outline application.

- Exceptional Circumstances – Viability - Whole Section :
We suggest that the SPD should include an affordable
housing cascade mechanism as an option. This should
include the steps that the Council will require applicants to take where there is no interest from a Registered Provider. This should include the process for agreeing an alternative tenure split with the Council and in the event that there remains no interest from a Registered Provider, the ability for affordable homes to be delivered as market homes with a commuted sum payable to the Council. The SPD should include the level of contribution for different sizes and tenure of affordable housing (which may be index linked) to avoid the requirement for site specific valuation.

While this may only be required in exceptional
circumstances, we consider that it is important to
include such a mechanism to ensure the delivery of
new homes across the District and to avoid
unnecessary delays in the event of changes to market
conditions and/or national planning policy.

- Integration of affordable housing within development - 2.2.24 :
Paragraph 2.2.24 lists the requirements for how the
Councils want affordable housing to be integrated.

Part (iii) states that “affordable housing is not to be
clustered in less desirable parts of the sites”. While the
desirability of different parts of a site could be open to
interpretation and therefore present difficulties in the
application of this requirement, we would suggest that,
if retained within the SPD, this requirement needs to
allow for some level of flexibility.

For example, if there are clearly defined less desirable
parts of a site, this has the potential to impact on
scheme viability, which in turn could prejudice the
ability of a scheme to deliver affordable housing or
other scheme benefits, such as community
infrastructure. We would therefore suggest that this
should be considered on a site-by-site basis taking
into account all considerations and aspects of a
scheme, in order to avoid prejudicing affordable
housing and scheme delivery.

Similarly, we suggest that part (iv), which refers to
limiting clusters of affordable homes to 15, should be
less prescriptive to allow consideration of appropriate
cluster sizes on a site-by-site basis. Whilst we fully
support the creation of mixed and balanced
communities, in the absence of evidence that clusters
of more than 15 affordable homes are the cause of
problems within the districts, there is a need for
greater flexibility and a more nuanced approach. There
are number of factors that need to be considered,
including urban design (for example, the need to
create a gateway feature, which may be more suited
towards the affordable housing mix), a Registered
Provider’s management requirements, as well as the
phasing of a scheme, where clusters of more than 15
affordable homes could result in earlier delivery of affordable housing.

- Strategic Policy 04 (SP04) – Provision for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople - 2.3.2 :
We would suggest that the SPD includes further guidance on when the Councils Evidence Base will be updated, and if possible, clarity on what the Councils are going to update in particular.

- 2.9.4 Local Policy 08 (LP08) – Self-Build and Custom Build :
Referring to self and custom build, paragraph 2.9.4
states that “following the introduction of this test, the
Councils will only consider demand arising from Part 1
of the registers when determining whether sufficient
planning permissions have been granted for the
purposes of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding
Act 2015. Part 2 of the registers will be used for
considering the Councils’ other duties under the Act.”
Whilst we acknowledge that this is in line with the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and agree with the
principle of prioritising people who pass the local connection test, we recommend that the Councils also
consider the demand arising from Part 2 of the register
as this still constitutes legitimate demand for custom/self-build homes in the districts.

Comment

Representation ID: 23595

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: Pigeon

Agent: Pigeon

Section Paragraph Comments
Suffolk Coast
Recreational
Disturbance Avoidance
and Mitigation
Strategy (RAMS): How
the tariff should be paid
3.16.17 The SPD sets out that “RAMS payments must be made
before a decision is issued”.
For schemes where a S106 agreement is required,
these payments would typically be secured as part of
the S106 agreement with an obligation that they are
paid prior to commencement of development, rather
than prior to a decision being issued.
The SPD should clarify that where a planning obligation
is being entered into under S106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act, that the RAMS payment may be
secured through S106 and that in this instance
payment will not be required pre-decision.
How will the Councils
assess the BNG
calculation?
4.14 In paragraph 4.14, the Councils state that although the
BNG requirement is 10%, they “would encourage
applicants to deliver at least 20% BNG where possible.”
While Pigeon schemes typically exceed the 10% BNG
requirement on-site, we suggest that schemes that
deliver the mandatory 10% BNG requirement will be
supported and remove the reference to 20%. This is
not supported by policy, and Paragraph 006 of the PPG
(Planning Practice Guidance) on BNG states that “planmakers
should not seek a higher percentage than the
statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either
on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for
development unless justified. To justify such policies
they will need to be evidenced including as to local
need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a
higher percentage and any impacts on viability for
development.”
Delivering BNG Off-site 4.22 Paragraph 4.22 outlines the reasons why permission
may be withheld with regards to Biodiversity Net Gain
(BNG).
One of the reasons is “inadequate information is
submitted about how the applicant plans to
deliver a 10% BNG”.
We would suggest that further guidance on what the
Councils expect to be submitted is included in the SPD,
preferably by way of a list, so it is clear what level of
information will be required. This will help to ensure
that applicants can successfully demonstrate that BNG
requirements have been met.
The Location Hierarchy
for Off-site BNG
4.24 Paragraph 4.24 says that “we expect all off-site BNG to
be delivered within the districts and as close
to the development site as possible where it is practical
to do so.”
There is no requirement in the Planning Practice
Guidance to provide all off-site BNG within the same
Local Authority Area. We suggest that this obligation is
relaxed, as in some cases it may not be possible to
provide all off-site solutions within Babergh Mid Suffolk
- or there may be sites on locations close to the Local
Authority boundary where off-site options across the
border may be in closer proximity to the site than
alternatives within Babergh and Mid Suffolk.
Furthermore, the SPD says that it must be delivered “as
close to the development site as possible where it is
practical to do so.” We suggest that this guidance will
be difficult to interpret in practice and would suggest
that it is replaced with an acknowledgement that the
suitability of off-site BNG will need to be agreed on a
site-by-site basis. Alternatively, we suggest that further
guidance, preferably by way of examples, should be
provided within the SPD to set out how this
requirement will be applied in practice, including in
what circumstances it will be deemed impractical.
The Location Hierarchy
for Off-site BNG
4.26 Paragraph 4.26 says that “Applicants relying on delivery
of off-site BNG will be required to demonstrate
they have used reasonable endeavours to secure gain
in the most sequentially preferable location as set out
in the above hierarchy, before moving onto the next
most preferable location” and that “ecological
justification must be used”
We would welcome further information to explain what
ecological justification will be accepted to allow
provision of BNG on alternative sites lower down the
hierarchy, as this is currently not provided in the SPD.
Furthermore, we suggest that greater flexibility may be
needed for the hierarchy itself. As mentioned in our
comments on paragraph 4.24, there may be some
cases where, for example, delivering off-site BNG in a
neighbouring Local Nature Recovery Strategy Area
may, on a site-by-site basis, be preferable and more
practical than delivering at an alternative location
within the districts.
Biodiversity and Design
Case Studies
P. 29 Riparian Buffer
Zone
The case study on ‘Riperian Buffer Zones’ outlines that
developers must “ensure a 10m ecological riparian
buffer zone is maintained for existing streams
and rivers. This helps to protect them
from the impact of adjacent land uses.” We would
welcome additional guidance on how the 10m figure
was reached, and if it is evidence based, we
recommend that the source is added to the SPD.
Furthermore, we suggest that this requirement is
‘approximately 10m’, rather than a more rigid ’10m’ as
buffers need to be judged on a site-by-site basis –
there may be cases where a larger buffer would be the
best option for protecting streams and rivers from
adjacent land uses and this will need to be assessed on
a site-by-site basis. In addition, there may be instances
where a buffer of less than 10m can provide an
adequate buffer and it is advantageous to do so taking
into account all other site specific requirements (for
example, in the interests of good urban design and
place making purposes).