Of the options listed, Persimmon Homes would support:

• Option 2 – requiring a suitable or negotiable mix of housing that is response to the type or location of development;
• Option 5 – all homes to meet NDSS;
• Option 6 – all homes to meet M4(2); and
• Option 7 – a proportion of homes to meet M4 (3).

Option 1 listed proposes a non-negotiable mix to be provided on all housing developments. Clearly, this option is unworkable in practice as certain sites are unable to deliver certain types of housing. For example, Brownfield sites in the urban areas are unlikely to be able to deliver suitable proportions of larger dwellings; likewise, heritage constraints in certain areas may influence the size of dwellings that a site could deliver to satisfy historic environment consultees. It is therefore more appropriate to require housing mix to be agreed during pre-application discussions, having regard to site and location characteristics, with the latest SHMA evidence used as a broad guide to inform those pre-application discussions.

Similarly, option 3, which proposes to allocation specific sites for certain types of housing, such as affordable homes, would have the potential to result in ‘ghettos’ and not created mixed inclusive communities (as required by paragraph 92 and 130 of the NPPF; good place-making would be achieved by requiring all developments to deliver policy compliant levels of affordable or specialist housing (subject to viability etc.) and to ensure that housing is of the same build quality/appearance as the market housing.