Comment

Representation ID: 25344

Received: 12/07/2024

Respondent: Catherine Isbell

As per my response to qs 87, a MUCH higher % should come from smaller developments so we can have higher quality homes and good employment opportunities for local trades people (neither of which are the case with large developers)

Comment

Representation ID: 25912

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Philip Moore

The policy of Windfall as it stands is unfair to villages such as Catsfield, without a neighbourhood plan. Historically, villages have grown by developments of the size not currently counted as valuable toward housing growth targets. Catsfield has already had a significant amount of infill housing compared to the size of the village. I would call for a re think of the windfall policy into a more fair, localised strategy. As it stands, Catsfield will be developed on the same model as a suburb.

Comment

Representation ID: 26313

Received: 17/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

Needs to be more realistic in terms of percentage for smaller rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 26923

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Brede Parish Council

10% seems appropriate

Comment

Representation ID: 27094

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Westfield Parish Council

See point 128 in the attached submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 27228

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

Within Guestling Parish there would seem to still be some scope for small amounts of considerate single dwelling infill within development boundary areas although the majority of this has now been carried out. Along with the possible change of use of properties that have been previously been given planning for holiday usage being allowed to be changed to full residential use or longer term rentals to allow for further housing stock (especially of smaller sizes).

Comment

Representation ID: 27419

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

The plan recognises that smaller sites do form an important part of the housing supply, and that these sites will often be identified via Neighbourhood Plans and that a significant percent of the planned house building will be from smaller sites. However, a large number of sites built over the past years in Catsfield of less than five houses do not count toward the targeted number of houses to be built. Catsfield has a higher than average number of these windfall sites but still has a higher than average target for building on larger sites. This disadvantages Catsfield or other villages by not recognising these smaller developments, unless they are part of a neighbourhood plan. This policy is therefore not equitable and does need to be adjusted to recognise parishes with high windfall percentages being built and to reduce (or not allocate land in the plan) targets set to recognise total developments achieved. So yes, target more than 10% and do so by recognising where local building on smaller sites has already contributed to the targets and can continue to do so, even when there is no NP.

Comment

Representation ID: 27619

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support this policy including the 20% requirement as it is evidence-based. Given the information set out in the Council’s Housing Land Supply Position Statement (December 2023), the HELAA and the points made in earlier chapters regarding constraints to delivery, it is important to ensure small sites are encouraged to help meet housing need. However, clarification is required as to whether the 20% target includes the 39 dwellings per annum windfall allowance.