50 homes with six affordable at Thomas Avenue, Trimley St Mary

What was proposed

The application sought to vary the approved plans for 50 homes so the affordable housing provision could be changed following updated viability evidence.

“Committee Report Planning committee – 23 September 2025 Application no. DC/24/1454/VOCLocation Land Adjacent To Mill Farm Thomas Avenue Trimley St Mary Suffolk IP11 0YS Statutory determination date Agreed extension date 18 July 2024 26 September 2025 Application typeVariation of Conditions ApplicantMatthew Homes Limited ParishTrimley St Mary ProposalVariation of Condition No.”

“1.Summary 1.1.This application seeks to vary condition 2 pursuant to planning permission DC/22/0991/FUL for the erection of 50 dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure. The amendment would enable the Affordable Housing Layout plan (AHL.01.Rev B) in the approved list of drawings to be changed following an update to the viability of the scheme.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval for six on-site affordable homes because independent reviews supported the revised viability position and registered providers showed limited interest.

“Matthew Homes agreed to add a surplus to this offering a final contribution in lieu amounting to £416,000, reserving the right to revert to the former figure should an appeal become necessary. 7.18.Despite several attempts by the applicant to source a Registered Provider to purchase the reduced number of Affordable Housing units (as set out in their revised viability, and independently verified by the Council’s appointed consultants), Officers recommended approval to vary…”

“8.Conclusions 8.1.Following extensive evidence provided by the applicant to demonstrate the reluctance of RPs to purchase the revised number of S106 Affordable Housing units on the site, the Council has decided to acquire the homes for inclusion within its portfolio.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

The parish council and a district councillor objected to reducing affordable housing, while three neighbours submitted objections covering affordable housing and the development principle.

“That planning permission lapsed but was extant at the time of the Local Plan adoption, therefore it was not re-allocated and instead it was included in the Settlement Boundary of the village and therefore established as a location suitable and sustainable for housing development.”

“4.Third Party Representations 4.1.Three letters of objection from neighbours. • One letter objecting to the reduction of affordable housing. • One letter objecting to the development incorporating affordable housing and misinterpreting the proposal. • One letter of objection to the principle development of 50 houses. This is disregarded as planning permission has already been granted.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A councillor spoke as objector, a ward member supported more affordable housing, and officers explained the viability review and recommendation.

What members debated

Members debated the reduced affordable housing, land value, provider interest, the applicant’s absence, appeal risks and whether to defer or refuse.

“Councillor Hedgley didn’t doubt that officers had made every effort to get affordable housing on this site. He didn’t believe the developers were being allowed to get away with it. His concern was that if the Committee refused the application how much longer would it go on for. The applicant would take it to appeal and if we lost we pay for it. He recommended biting the bullet and that this was as far as we can go on this.”

“He wished to vote in favour of a further deferment in order to get a better deal. Councillor Ashton said fundamentally the market was the problem and wondered if it was worth challenging viability rather than improving efficiencies. He was very concerned about the principle of challenging viability.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A proposal to approve the variation was made and seconded before the committee resolved to grant permission.

“He noted that the developer was willing to take a hit against their profits although it would have been nice to have the developer here today. He was minded to approve as this project needed to get started. Councillor Fisher agreed with Councillor Byatt. He didn’t like to support something that provided such few affordable houses but thought this was the best deal we would get.”

“Resolve to grant planning permission to vary condition 2 pursuant DC/22/0991/FUL, subject to a S106 Deed of Variation to amend the provision of Affordable Housing to 6no. on-site units. Conditions: 1.Condition 2 to be updated to replace approved Site Layout (SL.01.F) with revised Site Layout (SL.01.J) and removal of Affordable Housing Layout (AHL.01.B): The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with: Drwg. No.”

Minutes