Fears housing developers are entering “open season” on some of Suffolk’s most iconic landscapes have been raised.
Due to a substantial shortfall in houses being built, Babergh District Council’s power to control planning applications has been diminished, as policy defaults to national guidelines.
Babergh, home to landscapes made famous by painters such as John Constable and Thomas Gainsborough, has been found to have no adequate five-year housing land supply.
They also have no up to date local plan, meaning developers only need to meet National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) rules and prove that developments are “sustainable”.
Rural communities are now left fearing piece-meal over-development without adequate infrastructure or oversight.
“I am sure the developers will see this as open season,” said East Bergholt Action Group chairman Peter Dent, whose group has battled development in the village.
“We have the 144 coming back to planning and the 75 near the GP surgery coming up. It means you ditch the local plan and then NPPF takes over, and NPPF means they can disregard our neighbourhood plan.
“That is our major concern, the main plank of our opposition to the 144 is it is against our neighbourhood plan.”
Neighbouring Mid Suffolk District Council, who are partnered with Babergh, has for around 18 months suffered from the same situation, with the council left powerless to reject applications.
Submissions for houses in Mid Suffolk, especially along the A14 corridor, have frequently quoted the lack of housing land supply to justify development of thousands of homes.
Simon Barrett, Babergh cabinet member with responsibility for housing, admitted the council now have “little control” over applications.
He said developers were “fully aware” of the opportunity and were already seizing the advantage.
In the past weeks a controversial application for 71 houses in Long Melford has now been resubmitted and two applications for a total of 250 homes have been submitted for Capel St Mary.
“We have always said that if we drop below the limit and we deny development, this was going to happen,” Mr Barrett said.
Have villagers shot themselves in the foot?
With Babergh falling short in their five year housing land supply, the ability to fight against proposals or bring in much-needed infrastructure is now reduced.
People in villages such as East Bergholt, Long Melford and many others have vociferously combatted housing developments.
Last year an application for ten homes was turned down after a legal battle, supported by East Bergholt Action Group, saw a High Court judge rule against Babergh.
Now they face applications for a total of 220 homes with less powers to fight it. Action group chairman Peter Dent, who said the village supports the principal of smaller developments, said: “Our problem is not that we don’t want homes, we just don’t need any more £1million houses, we have enough. We need homes for the young and the elderly.”
He pointed to the “big problem” of 1,600 homes, which have permission but are yet to be built, as the true cause of the shortage.
What Babergh have to say
With sites such as Chilton Woods, which is hoped to deliver 1,100 homes, laying undeveloped for many years, Babergh have defended their role in losing the five year housing land supply.
To meet current assessments, the council had to prove they could deliver 300 houses a year.
A spokesman explained: “We want to be clear that while the supply of land for housing has fallen below five years, we have a number of projects working to ensure our housing delivery is both sufficient and appropriate for our communities.
“These include preparing our joint local plan [for submission in 2018], work on a strategic housing...and our new focus on delivery of housing, not just planning permissions.
“We are currently drawing up a new joint local plan with our partners in Mid Suffolk.
“The five year supply of land for housing has not been maintained due to a number of factors, including a declining rate of housing delivery per annum – distinct from permissions granted – since 2013. This new focus will redress that balance and see the houses we need being built.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here