Support

Representation ID: 26210

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Ipswich & East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group & West Suffolk CCG

The CCG and Alliance partners are willing to be involved in any discussions involving assisted living and residential care homes. This area of development puts strain on all healthcare providers and being involved in discussions from the earliest stage possible will help primary, secondary, community and mental health care mitigate the impact.

The provision of assisted living developments and residential care homes, although a necessary feature of care provision and welcomed, can pose significant impacts on local primary care provision and it is important that planners and developers engage early with the CCG, to plan and implement suitable mitigations.

Object

Representation ID: 26301

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Constable Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Have considered suitability of an element of care accommodation rather than convention 100 dwelling scheme but told by Council officers there is no need for elderly accommodation. SHMA update explains that 65+ population will increase dramatically. Policy does not separate elderly provision from other forms of housing and so would contribute to the Council’s five year housing land supply. Therefore surprising that Council is not actively encouraging this form of development. A retirement village is also different to sheltered housing, where the surplus is noted. Trickle-down benefits from down-sizing to elderly provision. Will continue to engage with Council.

Object

Representation ID: 26310

Received: 01/03/2020

Respondent: Councillor Timothy Lockington

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

National guidance outlines needs of independent older people and provision of suitable/specialised homes to support continuing independence. Guidance not reflected in draft framework which references projected over-provision of advanced accommodation (185 Class C3b dwellings). 57.8% projected increase in over 65s not addressed. Housing need for older people that are more able not discussed. Current Ipswich housing stock poorly accessible/adaptable. Current trends - modification of bungalows and predominance of 2/3 storey new builds - are unhelpful. No indication by developers of intention to provide appropriate older age accommodation at Northern Fringe. Request that inspector reflects on guidance and recommends adjustments.

Support

Representation ID: 26357

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Rentplus UK Ltd

Agent: Rentplus UK Ltd

Pleased to see that, as was previously set out at the Preferred Options stage, policies CS8 and CS12 and their supporting text refer to the up-to-date definitions of affordable housing, as set out in Annex 2 of the Framework. This ensures the Plan is consistent with national policy and is therefore sound in this regard.

Object

Representation ID: 26360

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Rentplus UK Ltd

Agent: Rentplus UK Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Welcome amendments to policy CS8 which promote a more flexible approach to mix where evidenced by the SHMA and other evidence of local needs. These amendments will assist in delivering the widest mix of housing and therefore meeting the widest range of needs. However, for clarity and consistency with the new fourth paragraph of CS8, the policy should be reworded slightly as follows: "In considering the most appropriate mix of homes by size, type and tenure for major residential proposals...."

Object

Representation ID: 26386

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Persimmon Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Within policy CS8 it is stated that through regard to the Ipswich Strategic Housing Market Assessment overall provision of a diverse range of housing will be secured, noting that the policy also states where that document remains up to date. Recent experiences of developing within the water front area in Ipswich has confirmed that there is a weak market for high density flatted development in Ipswich. It is recommended that allocations for schemes are revisited with a view to allow for lower density development. Persimmon endorse the statements made by the HBF.

Object

Representation ID: 26411

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Self-build/Custom build homes element of the policy lacks clarity on whether self-build plots should be provided on site. The Council’s Self Build Register identifies 70 interested persons which does not indicate a strong demand for this form of housing. It is recommended that this element of the policy is modified so it as the discretion of the developer to provide self-build homes on site. Gladman would not support an approach which requires all development to provide Self-build homes as there are potential health and safety concerns and practical difficulties in terms of aligning construction activity on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 26424

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Persimmon Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is also reasonable to question what time period is being used to define if the SHMA is up to date, in addition to recognition that market forces move quicker than the updating of evidence bases that support Local Plans. Defining what those time periods are would allow for clarity in future discussions on what weight can be afforded to alternative sources of evidence against the SHMA, but also provide developers with an element of certainty in discussions that appropriate sources of evidence have been referred to. Persimmon also endorse the statements made by the HBF.

Object

Representation ID: 26470

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

ABP welcomes IBC’s policy on housing type and tenure mix and the recognition of potential exceptions to these requirements in response, for example, to viability constraints. ABP also notes the desire of IBC to secure high density development on central sites (para 8.121) which will also assist viability. However, high density may not be appropriate in all instances.

Support

Representation ID: 26557

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

Agent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

The Company welcomes the acknowledgement that, in some cases, such as due to the high cost of development and ‘abnormals’ relating to a site, it may not always be viable to provide a full mix of dwelling types and sizes. Summary: General support.

Object

Representation ID: 26586

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is a disconnect between Policy CS8 seeking a mix of housing to meet the identified needs and site allocations, contrary to national policy. 61% of dwellings proposed are at a high density. These are likely to be small flats and over saturate this market. 13% of dwellings will be low density and predominantly houses, we question if this will meet the actual housing mix identified in qualitative terms or the overall need figure. IGS only likely to deliver post 2024 so there is a need for 3-bedroom and larger homes in early plan period. The Site can deliver this.