Government’s new housing targets must put infrastructure first

Suffolk County Council has raised concerns in its response to the government’s proposed reforms for planning policies for England.

In particular, it expresses fears about the lack of clarity around infrastructure, such as schools, transport, waste and community facilities when new housing developments are approved.

Last week, the government closed its consultation on plans to change the National Planning Policy Framework and other parts of the planning system.

The proposals include a significant increase in the number of new homes to be built across Suffolk – the government’s own figures suggest that East Suffolk alone would see an 87% increase in the number new homes, compared those currently planned.

Councillor Chris Chambers, Suffolk County Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport Strategy, Planning and Waste, said:

“Such a significant uplift in new homes in Suffolk, if not accompanied by the correct funding for affordable homes and infrastructure, will ring alarm bells with local residents.

“We’ve already seen from the new government that they are showing scant regard for Suffolk - with the approval of the Sunnica solar farm, the cancellation of our £500 million county deal and the withdrawal of Winter Fuel Payments. This cannot continue with huge pressure placed on the county with the new government’s housing targets, without the appropriate infrastructure to sit alongside it.

“In my own division, the villages of Bramford and Great Blakenham have grown considerably, and many residents have commented that roads and other infrastructure only come after the homes, if it comes at all.

“This is simply not sustainable – infrastructure must be delivered in a timely manner. If residential developments emerge that are not included in local plans because of the new government’s policy, then the onus must be on the developer to confirm how infrastructure will be delivered.”

Suffolk County Council is already very active in securing developer contributions and delivering infrastructure. It secures Section 106 contributions as well as funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy from district councils - but this is to maintain a baseline level of service rather than make a positive overall improvement to infrastructure.

In its response to government, the council said that the simple question of “who pays” for the infrastructure needs to be answered when permissions are being granted. Local planning authorities should not be allowed to assume that other authorities and agencies will make up any difference.