Object

Publication

Representation ID: 24480

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Silvis Development

Agent: La Ronde Wright

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy 5 states that at least 5% of plots on residential proposals of 40 dwellings or more should provide serviced self/custom build plots. It is considered that this policy is not effective to ensure the delivery of self or custom build dwellings.

Speaking from a practical point of view, the attraction of custom and self-build dwellings lies in the flexibility of the design and layout. Given the size of the proposed allocations within the GNLP, it is fair to assume that volume house builders will be delivering the majority of sites, this means in reality that economies of scale will be used to produce standardised dwellings, where bespoke units will appear incongruous. Additionally, incorporating a small proportion of self or custom build dwellings within such schemes are unlikely to attract the individuals looking for purpose built bespoke homes. As such, the strategy is considered to be unjustified as the plan does not respond to the evidence that custom builders prefer development on smaller, more rural sites, not within large housing allocations.

The policy states that 5% of plots on residential proposals of 40 dwellings or more should provide serviced self/custom-build plots unless there is no need, or plots have been marketed for 12 months and have not been sold. Given that these plots will be unattractive to self builders, it is likely any need will not be met by this policy as vacant plots will eventually be re-developed when final phases of large allocations are completed. Additionally, logistical complexities of delivering sites with multiple contractors simultaneously will further reduce the attraction for smaller self-builders.

This means that there are questions regarding the deliverability of the policy over the plan period given that an inadequate strategy has been provided that is not positively prepared. This is because the policy is not providing enough flexibility and choice to address the areas objectively assessed need, and will fail to secure delivery of a mix of sites to enable choice for self-builders. As such the policy is found to be ineffective, not positively prepared, and unjustified in conflict with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Change suggested by respondent:

To make the policy and plan sound, it is considered that a more flexible policy be proposed. Policies HOU03 and HOU05 of the Breckland Local Plan (see Annex 1) facilitate a more flexible approach that directly responds to the needs of custom/self-builders. These policies recognise the principle aspirations of self-builders and sets a favourable framework for approving self-build dwellings in small villages and hamlets outside of settlement boundaries. This is done by allowing for development in more rural locations and actively encouraging smaller sites, which are more likely to be delivered through a windfall style policy, than tying self-build plots in large housing allocations. It is considered that given the overall need for the joint authorities, that a mix of dedicated allocations in more rural locations be provided, alongside a policy that actively supports small scale self-build and custom build plots on land that relates well to existing settlements.

Full text:

Policy 5 states that at least 5% of plots on residential proposals of 40 dwellings or more should provide serviced self/custom build plots. It is considered that this policy is not effective to ensure the delivery of self or custom build dwellings.

Speaking from a practical point of view, the attraction of custom and self-build dwellings lies in the flexibility of the design and layout. Given the size of the proposed allocations within the GNLP, it is fair to assume that volume house builders will be delivering the majority of sites, this means in reality that economies of scale will be used to produce standardised dwellings, where bespoke units will appear incongruous. Additionally, incorporating a small proportion of self or custom build dwellings within such schemes are unlikely to attract the individuals looking for purpose built bespoke homes. As such, the strategy is considered to be unjustified as the plan does not respond to the evidence that custom builders prefer development on smaller, more rural sites, not within large housing allocations.

The policy states that 5% of plots on residential proposals of 40 dwellings or more should provide serviced self/custom-build plots unless there is no need, or plots have been marketed for 12 months and have not been sold. Given that these plots will be unattractive to self builders, it is likely any need will not be met by this policy as vacant plots will eventually be re-developed when final phases of large allocations are completed. Additionally, logistical complexities of delivering sites with multiple contractors simultaneously will further reduce the attraction for smaller self-builders.

This means that there are questions regarding the deliverability of the policy over the plan period given that an inadequate strategy has been provided that is not positively prepared. This is because the policy is not providing enough flexibility and choice to address the areas objectively assessed need, and will fail to secure delivery of a mix of sites to enable choice for self-builders. As such the policy is found to be ineffective, not positively prepared, and unjustified in conflict with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.