The decision to allow affordable housing to be removed from a major development in east Suffolk “drove a coach and horses” through planning policy and will set a “dangerous precedent”, a senior councillor has said.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Christopher Hudson, who is one of Framlingham’s district councillors, condemned the approval of Hopkins Homes’ appeal over its rejected plans for the town, claiming it “made a mockery of local sustainability”.

Suffolk Coastal District Council had rejected the developer’s request to progress with its 140-dwelling scheme off Station Road without the 47 affordable homes originally agreed, judging the loss to be “completely unacceptable”.

Last week, however, planning inspector Geoff Salter approved Hopkins Homes’ appeal against the decision, after agreeing with the company’s claims the development would not be financially viable if it included the affordable housing.

Mr Hudson, who sits on the planning committee and is also the chairman of Suffolk County Council, said the decision was “indefensible” and had provoked outcry among the town’s residents.

“It’s driven a coach and horses through our affordable housing policy and I’m very worried that we’ve set a dangerous precedent for other applications,” he said.

“It’s ludicrous to get rid of brown and green field sites only to have second homes built there when we’ve got a crying need for affordable homes in the town.”

Mr Hudson said the housing situation had become “untenable” and local ratepayers felt their rights had been “completely abandoned”.

“Framlingham is demanding affordable housing and it’s a vital part of our core strategy,” he added.

The decision was also met with disappointment from Framlingham Town Council, Stephen Burroughes, who is the town’s county councillor, and Geoff Holdcroft, the district council’s planning chairman.

A Planning Inspectorate spokesman said inspectors were “impartial and independent” but did not comment on decisions. Mr Salter, in his appeal decision letter, said removal of affordable housing was “reasonable and is necessary in this particular case to enable the development to move towards viability”.

2 comments

  • I thought the basic problem was that SCDC does not have a proper planning police as the legal long term plan has never been ratified and thus people are using that failure to get around any restrictions So its SCDC's fault

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    A Smith

    Wednesday, July 16, 2014

  • This reversal of the decision is so suspect there ought to be an enquiry. It is like a lottery win for Hopkins. At a time when local people are crying out for affordable housing it is unforgiveable to let Hopkins renege on its promise. And it isn't the first time. I smell a rat.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolkngood

    Wednesday, July 16, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT