ipswich.gov.uk

CSRMM12

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)

Representation ID: 24382

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation:

Supports the deletion of affordable housing from this policy as it avoids repetition of Policy CS10.Object to the absence of reference to 'starter homes' in Policy CS12.Clause 4 of the Housing & Planning Act (2016) requires all LPA's to promote the supply of 'starter homes' when carrying out relevant planning functions. Clause 5 enables the Secretary of State, through regulations to require LPAs to only grant planning permission for a residential development of a specified description if the "Starter Homes" requirement is met. Secondary legislation will set out the percentage of starter homes that LPA's are required to deliver on different sized sites. Although not published yet, IBC should include reference to starter homes to ensure viability issues are not exacerbated and that 'starter homes' form part of affordable housing and not an add on.

Full text:

24013/A3/LN/HE/kf 30 November 2016
Dear Sir/Madam
CORE STRATEGY AND POLICIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT REVIEW
POST SUBMISSION MAIN MODIFICATIONS REPRESENTATIONS (NOVEMBER 20161
ON BEHALF OF CREST NICHOLSON
We write on behalf of Crest Nicholson (Crest) and set out comments in response to Ipswich Borough Council's (IBC) Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review — Post Submission Main Modifications (CSMM).
Crest Nicholson has control of the northern parcel of Ipswich Garden Suburb (IGS), known as 'Henley Gate'. The majority of Henley Gate is located within the administrative area of Ipswich Borough Council (IBC), however a small area is located within Suffolk Coastal District Council's (SCDC) administrative boundary. A cross-boundary Outline planning application for Henley Gate was submitted to IBC (IP/16/00608/OUT) and SCDC (DC/16/2592/OUT) on 22 June 2016.
Notwithstanding our Client's specific land interests, these representations have been prepared in objective terms and assessed against the prevailing planning policy framework — in particular the Government's guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (March 2014).
a) Strategic Policies
Policy CS1: Sustainable Development — We support the amendments to this Policy which has removed the elements of the Policy that are more suited to Development Management policies. This Policy now better reflects an overarching strategic policy.
Policy CS4: Protecting our Assets — We support the deletion of reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes from Paragraph 8.58 of the supporting text, to reflect the withdrawal of the Code by Government. In addition, we support the deletion of reference to BREEAM rating and inclusion of Historic England advice regarding Building Regulations.
Policy CS7: The Amount of Housing Required — The identification of an interim housing target of at least 9,777 (489dpa) dwellings for the Plan Period (2016-2013) is supported. This reflects the fact that due to capacity constraints within the Borough sufficient deliverable land to achieve more than this interim target cannot be found within IBC's administrative area.



24013/A3/LN/HE/kf 2 30 November 2016
Whilst it is not ideal that the Plan does not seek to meet IBC's Full Objectively Assessed Need (CAN) in accordance with the NPPF, this approach has been taken so as not to delay the adoption of the Plan whilst an updated OAN for the Ipswich Market Area is identified. It is considered necessary for the Plan to be adopted in order to encourage high quality development to come forward within the Borough and therefore this approach is supported.
The inclusion of a commitment to the preparation of joint or aligned Local Plans or a new Strategic Plan to be prepared by IBC, Babergh/Mid Suffolk District Councils and Suffolk Coastal District Council, to conclude by 2019 is supported. Joint working between the Councils is necessary to ensure that the Full OAN for Ipswich can be delivered in the future.
The identification that IGS will contribute significantly to meeting the housing needs of the Borough throughout the Plan period is supported. An Outline Planning Application for Henley Gate was submitted on 22 June 2016 and the construction of Henley Gate is anticipated to commence in late 2017/early 2018, subject to gaining planning permission, and span approximately 13 years. The construction of the Development is likely to take place in six phases, with construction of approximately 150-300 dwellings in each phase. Overall, the construction process is expected to be completed by 2031.
It is currently anticipated that the application will be considered by the IBC's Planning Committee on 08 February 2017.
Emerging Policy CS10: Ipswich Garden Suburb - We support the amendments to the text within Policy CS10, which provide clarity and further detail regarding the land uses at IGS. It is however, considered that 'minimum' should be added to the residential area (100ha) as it is likely that this could be exceeded.
The removal of reference to the triggers for the delivery of infrastructure necessary to support the development of IGS is supported. A new paragraph has been inserted which indicates that the trigger points for delivery will be determined as part of the preparation of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). Following work on Stage 3 of the IDP, IBC is now exploring an approach to securing infrastructure delivery through separate Section 106 Agreements, which will be agreed under the umbrella of the overarching IDP. The trigger points and responsibility for the delivery of infrastructure will be determined through this process of negotiation between IBC and the developers of IGS.
Crest is a key delivery partner of the IGS and therefore its main objective is to ensure the timely delivery of this strategic allocation alongside the infrastructure necessary to support it in the medium to long term. The removal of triggers from the CS10 and Table 8B will ensure that sufficient flexibility is provided to enable negotiation to take place and ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to ensure the delivery of infrastructure, at an appropriate time by the relevant parties.
i) Affordable Housing
A new paragraph has been added to this Policy, which outlines the affordable housing requirements for IGS. This paragraph states that 31% affordable housing is deliverable across the whole scheme. We disagree.
We consider that the requirement for 31% affordable housing across IGS is an unrealistic target. The Gerald Eve Viability Report (June 2016) indicates at Paragraph 13.7, that it would be appropriate to estimate that the overall masterplan for IGS could deliver circa 20% affordable housing based on the total number of units on a present day basis.
Moreover, current discussions regarding the planning application for Henley Gate (IP/16/00608/OUT and DC/16/2592/OUT) have centred on the provision of 15% affordable housing, with subsequent review mechanisms. The Core Strategy should therefore reflect a realistic target for affordable housing delivery.
We therefore object to the requirement for 31% affordable housing across IGS.
This unrealistic situation is being compounded further due to the suggested Modification that seeks to introduce a cap of 35% for each phase of the development. It is not considered appropriate for the identified cap to be set higher than the requirement for IGS as a whole. As outlined above the proposed target of 31% is already considered to be an unrealistic figure, and therefore it is highly unlikely that the 35% cap will be reached. We therefore object to the identification of a 35% cap, which should be set at the same (lower) level as the overall requirement for IGS.
The proposed paragraph also requires viability re-assessments to be undertaken pre-implementation of individual applications at each phase. This requirement is considered to be overly onerous as there are likely to be numerous phases for each parcel of IGS (circa 6 phases for Henley Gate). As such, the requirement to undertake a viability review for each phase is unnecessary and will be costly and time consuming for the developers. Viability re-assessments should therefore be undertaken at appropriate stages of the development, which can be agreed through the process of negotiating the Section 106 Agreement for Henley Gate.
Emerging Policy CS12: Affordable Housing — Reference to the provision of affordable at IGS has been deleted from this Policy. This modification is supported as it avoids repetition of Policy CS10.
It is also noted that no reference is made within Policy CS12 to "Starter Homes" and we therefore object to this Policy as presently worded.
The Housing and Planning Act received Royal Assent on 12 May 2016. Clause 4 of the Act requires all LPAs to promote the supply of "Starter Homes" when carrying out relevant planning functions. Clause 5 enables the Secretary of State, through regulations to require LPAs to only grant planning permission for a residential development of a specified description if the "Starter Homes" requirement is met.
The Housing and Planning Bill 2015/16 Impact Assessment states that secondary legislation will set out the percentage of "Starter Homes" LPAs will be required to deliver on different sized sites and in different areas. It is our understanding that the Government intends to amend the definition of Affordable Housing, as defined in Annex B of the NPPF, to include "Starter Homes". Whilst it is recognised that the secondary legislation has not yet been published, IBC should include reference to Starter Homes within Affordable Housing Policy CS12 to ensure that viability issues are not exacerbated further within the district i.e. that "Starter Homes" will form part of the Affordable Housing requirement, and not in addition to.
Emerging Policy CS17: Delivering Infrastructure - We support the amendment to this Policy wording which clarifies that the direct provision of infrastructure by developers is allowed as mitigation for impacts, as an alternative to a commuted sum or where it is not anticipated that the infrastructure will be provided through CIL. This provides sufficient flexibility for developers. We suggest that similar text is also included within Policy C510.
b) Development Management Policies
Emerging Policy DM1: Sustainable Design and Construction — As set out in our previous representations and Hearing Statement (Matter 4a), Part a. of this Policy requires new build residential development to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions of 19% below the Target Emissions Rate of the 2013 Building Regulations (Part L). The Written Ministerial Statement - March 2015 states that from the date the Deregulation Bill 2015 is given Royal Assent (now enacted), LPAs should not set any additional local technical standards relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings in emerging Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans or SPDs. Energy performance standards that exceed the energy requirements of Building Regulations cannot be required following commencement of amendments to the Planning and Energy Act (2008), and this was expected to happen alongside the introduction of Zero Carbon Homes in 2016.
We therefore object to Part a. of Policy DM1 and this should be removed.
Emerging Policy DM2: Decentralised Renewable or Low Carbon Energy — We recognise that there are no modifications proposed to this Policy. However, as outlined in our previous representations (Barton Willmore, March and November 2015), we object to this policy as there is no robust evidence base to justify the requirement for all new developments of 10 or more dwellings to provide at least 15% of their energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.
Emerging Policy DM5: Design and Character — Part e. of this Policy requires all new developments to protect and enhance the setting of any nearby listed buildings. However, this is not considered to be "consistent" with National policy. Notably, NPPF Para 134 allows for "less than substantial harm" to a designated heritage asset, should it be demonstrated that the harm is outweighed by the public benefits provided by the scheme. New developments cannot therefore be expected to protect and enhance the setting of a listed building in all situations.
We therefore suggest the following amendments to Policy DM5:
e. Where possible, protecting and enhancing the special character and distinctiveness of Ipswich, including significant views that are recognised as being important and worth protecting, the setting of any nearby listed buildings, and helping to reinforce the attractive physical characteristics of local neighbourhoods and the visual appearance of the immediate street scene — albeit any potential harm needs to weighed against any public benefits provided by the scheme (NPPF Para 134).
We do however, support the inclusion of supporting text at Paragraph 9.49, which confirms that decisions about proposed development which would harm the significance of a designated heritage assets will be taken with regard to the balancing exercise in Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF.
Part i. of this policy introduces the provision of public art where this would be required to enhance the public realm and/or reinforce a sense of place which could include new installations where this would be commensurate to the scale and type of development. Modifications to Part i. are not proposed.
We do not object to IBC seeking public art per se, however, and as outlined in our previous representations (Barton Willmore, March and November 2015) we would expect requests for public art to be proportionate in scale and allow for flexibility, for example taking into account other contributions sought on an individual development. This is considered necessary to ensure that new developments remain viable and deliverable and for the policy to be 'justified' and 'effective'. Furthermore, the definition of 'art' should be flexible and cover the delivery of a wide range of products/installations.
This policy has been amended and now requires that 25% of new dwellings, built on developments of 10 or more dwellings are built to Building Regulations standard M4(2), as opposed to the 35% previously proposed. We welcome the acknowledgement from IBC that the requirement for 35% is too high and likely to have viability implications for developments. In addition, we welcome the flexibility provided within the Policy which will ensure that the requirements do not hinder development in circumstances where it is not possible to accommodate the requirement and/or in case were the requirement would render the development unviable.
In addition, the requirement for a proportion of affordable housing to be built to Building Regulations standard M4(3) has been deleted, in light of the fact that IBC's housing register currently indicates a relatively small number of wheelchair accessible homes at Building Regulations Standard M4(3) are needed. As such this type of provision is encouraged but not required. This approach is supported.
Emerging Policy DM8: Heritage Assets and Conservation- We support the amendments to the wording of this Policy, which removes reference to the consideration of "substantial harm" to undesignated heritage assets, to reflect NPPF Paragraph 133.
However, the second sentence of this paragraph is unclear with regards to "less than substantial harm" to designated heritage assets and in relation to non-designated heritage assets. The fact that Paragraphs 134 and 135 of the NPPF are separate indicates that the balancing exercise required under each paragraph is different. However, this Policy as currently worded, implies that the balancing exercise to be undertaken for both designated (where "less than substantial harm" occurs) and non-designated heritage assets is the same. We therefore object to this Policy as it is not "consistent" with National Policy.
Our previous representations (Barton Willmore, March and November 2015) highlighted concerns regarding Part b. "Conservation Areas" which states that the position, height, mass and materials of a proposed building shall pay regard to the character of adjoining buildings. This is not objected to however, the weight that should be attached to the character of buildings should be proportionate to their status and this should be reflected in the Policy wording to ensure that it is 'justified'.
Policy DM10: Protection of Trees and Hedgerows — Part h. of this Policy has been amended and now requires replacement planting where the removal of a mature tree is proposed, on a two for one basis using semi-mature specimens. It is considered that the replacement of mature trees on a two-for-one basis is justified, however the quality of the tree should be assessed. It is not considered justified to require replacement of low quality mature trees on a two-for-one basis.
Emerging Policy DM17: Transport and Access in New Developments — Part c. of this Policy seeks to incorporate electric vehicle charging points and a car club scheme. It is not considered that these measures are necessary for a scheme to come forward in a sustainable way and factors such as availability and distance for public transport should be taken into account when assessing individual developments. We therefore object to this Policy as currently worded.
We do however, support the inclusion of additional wording, which indicates that if it is not shown to be viable for a development to provide electric vehicle charging points and a car club scheme, the infrastructure to secure their future delivery should be provided. This provides sufficient flexibility for developers.
Part f. seeks new developments to have safe and convenient access to public transport within 400m. This is not considered necessary for all development sites and this Policy does not take into account sites that are within reasonable walking distance of local services, which would not necessarily need to be within 400m of public transport. The Policy should therefore be reworded to reflect individual site circumstances to ensure it is 'justified' and 'effective'.
The additional wording proposed for Paragraph 9.100 indicates that this criterion would not be applied unreasonably if limited parts of a development where unavoidable slightly further than 400m fro public transport. Whilst the addition of this limited flexibility is a step in the right direction, this does not address the issue outlined above, where it is not necessary in all situations for developments to have access to public transport within 400m.
Emerging Policy DM24: Affordable Housing — We support the deletion of this Policy.
Emerging Policy DM29: Provision of New Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation Facilities —We welcome the inclusion of additional text, which confirms that there may be circumstances where development would more suitably accommodate greater provision of one typology at the expense of another and such circumstances will be considered on their merits. This reflects the approach taken by IBC as part of the current planning application for Henley Gate (16/00608/OUT).
Emerging Policy DM30: The Density of Residential Development - The Written Ministerial Statement - March 2015 introduces new Nationally Described Space Standards for housing. These regulations are optional and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (ID: 56-002-20150327) requires LPAs to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards and the viability implications. The Council has not demonstrated there is a need or provided evidence regarding viability and therefore we object to this policy.
We do however, welcome the inclusion of text which indicates that these standards will not be applied where it can be demonstrated that it is not viable to do so.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries on the above.

Support

Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)

Representation ID: 24386

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: CBRE

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Representation:

We support the proposed approach of using Policy CS10 to address affordable housing moving affordable housing policy for the IGS.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)

Representation ID: 24418

Received: 21/10/2016

Respondent: Anna Spencer

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation:

Even with 9777 dwellings the plan is badly thought and I do not see any evidence in the plan of any major modifications to make it sensible. My opposition to such extensive development is written belowand it is the same as the one I have submitted before.
Unsustainable plan
Outside local plan
Drainage: no proper plan
Flooding impact not well considered
Sewage problems: not properly planned as not sufficient
Traffic proposal not enough to satisfy requirements
Adverse effect from road widening: more trees would need removing and further congestion will occur
Air pollution would significantly increase
Park: plan delayed to 2032...terrible
Do we really need all these houses given how many people are without a job in Ipswich?

Moreover I do not see any evidence anywhere that we have started to have additional jobs since 2011 (if you read the clause above apparently we should have). Also, the affordable housing issue is just not there. A recent local survey has revealed that a worrying number of houses in the regions are empty (The latest Government statistics on housing show more than 21,000 homes in the region were left empty in 2015 with nearly a third of those classified as "long-term" vacant.). So why do we need new houses?
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/why_are_thousands_of_homes_still_standing_empty_in_suffolk_and_essex_1_4725208

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)

Representation ID: 24627

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Representation:

We support the proposed approach of using Policy CS10 to address affordable housing moving affordable housing policy for the IGS.

Full text:

See attached