See attached

See attached

Policy CS1: Sustainable Development - Climate Change

Parts of the policy are unsound as they are contrary to national policy.

Part B of the policy requires all major developments to achieve a target of at least 15% of their energy requirements to be provided through decentralised renewable or low carbon energy were feasible and viable.

The approach is contrary to national policy. We refer to the published DCLG consultation document Next steps to zero carbon homes - Allowable Solutions published in August 2013. This set out the Government's thinking on how the energy efficiency targets in the Building Regulations will be met by developers. How developers achieve the carbon reduction targets under Part L of the Building Regulations is a matter for them to decide. The Council cannot specify how this is achieved. It cannot require developers to provide or connect to decentralised energy systems and it cannot require developers to provide decentralised or low carbon energy systems. Applicants will be free to decide the most appropriate course themselves. There are also legal considerations relating to connection to district heating that means that the role of the Council is prescribing in detail how energy reduction targets will be achieved and so is unlawful. Customers (home purchasers or tenants) are required under law to have the freedom of choice from whom they purchase their energy. This part of the policy is therefore contrary to paragraph 95 of the NPPF. The policy should be deleted.

It is unclear what is being proposed by parts C and D of the policy. The Government proposes that house builders will have a choice of four routes to deliver the remaining carbon abatement above the onsite minimum level required by the Building Regulations from 2016 (see chapter 6). One option includes contracting with a private sector party or local authority for them to deliver carbon abatement measures, but developers cannot be compelled down this route. Developers may be allowed to deliver Allowable Solutions through a combination of the four options but how Allowable Solutions are delivered is a matter for the developer to decide, not the council. The policy therefore, is not compliant with the direction of Government thinking and should be deleted. This is not a planning matter.

Part I of the policy may need amending in the light of the Government's Housing Standards Review. If the Council expects developers to incorporate water conservation measures that exceed the current Building Regulations then it will need to have regard to the Government's tests set out in the Housing Standards Review with regard to adopting the optional standard for water conservation. It will also need to have regard for paragraph 173 of the NPPF.

These parts of the policy should be revised to make clearer the Council's intentions.

Policy CS6: The Ipswich Policy Area

The plan is unsound because it is not based upon constructive cooperation that will address the unmet need of the HMA.

The policy states that the preparation of joint or aligned development plan documents is to be explored later in the plan period. We do not understand why this has to be later in the plan period or why this preparation has not occurred in advance of the finalisation of this plan. A more convincing policy might have stated that the authorities will embark upon an immediate and coordinated review of the collective plans of the HMA by 2015 with the process to be completed with new plans to be submitted for examination by 2020.

As the policy is currently worded there the councils would be under no compunction to do what they say. The inclusion of specific dates in the plan would place more pressure on the councils to do what they say.

See attached

Past windfall delivery: what is the evidence for this?

Table 3 on pages 29 and 30 of the plan show that some 1,800 dwellings are expected from windfall sites. (900 are expected from small windfall sites over the plan period 2015-2031. A further 900 windfalls are expected on large sites for the period 2020-2031. The Council expects a total of 1,800 dwellings to materialise in the form of windfall development over the plan period with 90% of these being on brownfield land (see also paragraph 48 of the Housing Topic Paper). This is a quite a substantial figure and it would be helpful if the Council provided some evidence to justify its assumption that windfalls of this number will come forward based upon past records. We note the contents of paragraph 9.90 of the plan and its reference to the historic contribution of small sites and backland plots to maintaining housing supply but we would query the extent to which the Council can continue to rely upon this source.

See attached

Policy DM1: Sustainable design and construction

Elements of the policy are unsound because the requirements conflict with national policy.

We recommend that the requirement in the policy part A for residential development to comply with Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 is deleted because this is contrary to the Government's intention to remove the Code as a national standard but to incorporate elements in the revised and expanded Building Regulations. This is set out the Government's Housing Standards Review.

The last part of the policy states that the standards stipulated are the minimum. This is vague and will result in uncertainty for the applicant and the decision-maker. This would be contrary to the NPPF which requires that the local authority's policy on local standards is set out in the local plan (paragraph 174). This is necessary to provide clarity for the applicant to know what he or she needs to do to comply with local policy and so that the decision-maker knows how to assess the application (see paragraph 154 of the NPPF). Having clear policies is important in order to provide a practical framework to enable planning applications to be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency (NPPF, paragraph 17).

We recommend that this part of the policy is deleted because it lacks clarity. We also recommend it is deleted because the outcome of the Government's Housing Standards Review will only require developers to comply with the Building Regulations. Local authorities will not be able to specify compliance with any other standard.

Policy DM2: Decentralised renewable or low carbon energy

The policy is unsound because it is contrary to national policy.

This policy is contrary to the Government's policy on how the energy efficiency targets are achieved including its statement on how residential developers will be able to meet the target for zero carbon homes from 2016 onwards. The DCLG in its paper entitled Next Steps to Zero Carbon Homes - Allowable Solutions (DCLG, July 2014) has made it clear that residential developers are not obliged to pursue any particular route to achieve the carbon efficiency targets under Part L of the Building Regulations that may be suggested by the local authority. The house builder will be free to choose the most appropriate measure (see paragraph 8 of the report). The Council, therefore, cannot require that developers provide for at least 15% of their energy requirements from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources. They may decide to, but they cannot be compelled to do so. Nor is the applicant required to justify what particular approach he/she has decided to adopt in order to achieve the carbon efficiency targets. Nor is the applicant required to design the development to allow for the application of feed-in tariffs.

This is not a planning matter and should be deleted in respect of residential development.

Policy DM3: Provision of private outdoor amenity space in new and existing developments

This policy is unsound because it is unjustified.

We have been unable to locate a justification for this policy in respect of new development. The Council needs to provide evidence that the provision of outdoor amenity space has been unsatisfactory.