Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Main Modifications

Object

Representation ID: 26697

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Policy CS10 Affordable Housing provisions - In relation to the affordable housing requirement of 31% in Policy CS10, the Council’s further written statement as per K22 seeks to explain why it considers it can rely on the Aspinal Verdi Whole Plan Viability Assessment as evidence to support that provision. We explain why, with cross reference to our original submissions, the Aspinal Verdi appraisal is flawed, and therefore cannot be relied on, and in the absence of any other evidential base to support 31%, the Plan is unsound. Policy CS10 seeks 31% affordable housing, but the premise for that figure is a flawed viability assessment. This means that there is no credible evidence base to support that figure, regardless of whether it is mathematically possible or not.
There is however a credible evidence base to support an affordable housing target of 5%, because there are two site specific appraisals that show that outcome.

Object

Representation ID: 26698

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Policy CS10 wording in respect of viability review provisions - We explain, again in response to K22, why in the absence of any Modification, the viability review mechanism text is unsound.Although IBC correctly point out that the wording used has not prevented the grant of the permissions for Fonnereau and Henley Gate, each with viability review mechanisms, we would say that has been achieved in spite of the wording of the text, not because of it, and the text remains unclear.

Object

Representation ID: 26699

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

We understand that the Council has sought to update the Plan in relation to the new Use Classes order, but the revisions made are not in our view Justified as they unreasonably preclude certain uses that the submitted version of the Plan would have allowed. In the Submitted version of the Plan, the uses permissible within the Local Centres included a specified amount of retail use (convenience and comparison), and also any use within the old Use Classes A2-A5, and non-retail uses falling within Class A1. The new wording only allows for 5 specific uses in addition to retail – restaurants, cafes, offices, public houses and hot food takeaways. The purpose of the new Class E Use Class is to promote the vitality of Local Centres by allowing uses to freely change between different types, and therefore there would need to be a very clear rationale for excluding uses that would otherwise fall within the same use class. There is nothing in the Modifications that explains why a hairdressers (by way of an example) would be inappropriate within a Local Centre.

Object

Representation ID: 26700

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Policy CS10 the wording of the policy in relation to site specific matters and the role of the SPD - Elements of the detailed wording of the policy in relation to site specific matters and the role of the SPD, which relate to Effectiveness, are unsound. Our concern is the reference to the SPD identifying detailed locations for uses and infrastructure, which we do not consider is consistent with the stated purpose of the SPD as acting as guidance for development proposals (and arguably is also contrary to the relevant Local Plan Regulations in respect of the ability or otherwise for SPD to allocate land for development).

Object

Representation ID: 26701

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

The Affordable Housing provisions, which relate to soundness issues in respect of the justification and the effectiveness of the Policy. The overall quantum to be achieved requires revaluation in the light of the
decisions already made. It is unclear as to why the Whole Plan Viability Appraisal has been progressed on the basis of assessing the Ipswich Garden Suburb as if there were no existing permissions and as if the whole of the 3500 units were unconsented, but the result is that the Appraisal has produced an outcome that is both unreliable, unevidenced, and effectively impossible to achieve.

Object

Representation ID: 26702

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

The wording of the Policy in respect of viability review provisions is unsound as it is impractical and imprecise. The wording states that viability will be re-tested prior to implementation of applications within each neighbourhood, but is not clear as to whether it is referring to outline applications or reserved matters applications. If the former, then the re-testing prior to implementation would serve no purpose, because in all likelihood the Outline permission will only have been granted relatively recently, and so the re-test would be likely to produce similar results. If the intention were
to re-test before implementation of each Reserved Matters implementation, then re-testing might either be happening on an unrealistically frequent basis if a phase is made up of many Reserved Matters, or otherwise might not happen at all if a developer came forward with a single large Reserved Matters application for an entire site.

Object

Representation ID: 26710

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Overall, we submit that:
(a) There has never been any evidence before the Examination that would lead to a conclusion
that either the 35 dph density or the 60% residential site coverage were unsound, and therefore there is no need for any Modification in this respect in the first place;
(b) There has never been any objection from any party to either the 35 dph density or 60% residential site coverage;
(c) The initial view of IBC to change the yield to 449 was never substantiated or explained, and in any event is superseded by the subsequent view of IBC, as set out in the agreed Modifications, to support the figure of 489 units.

For these reasons, MM17 (and MM18) are unsound for the unjustified amendments to the site yield.

Object

Representation ID: 26711

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Overall, we submit that:
(a) There has never been any evidence before the Examination that would lead to a conclusion
that either the 35 dph density or the 60% residential site coverage were unsound, and therefore there is no need for any Modification in this respect in the first place;
(b) There has never been any objection from any party to either the 35 dph density or 60% residential site coverage;
(c) The initial view of IBC to change the yield to 449 was never substantiated or explained, and in any event is superseded by the subsequent view of IBC, as set out in the agreed Modifications, to support the figure of 489 units.
For these reasons, MM17 (and MM18) are themselves unsound for the unjustified amendments to
the site yield.