Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

Representation 12396 on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) by Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Support / Object: COMMENT
Document Link: BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - HOUSING, Rural growth and development, Q27
Representation: Consider impact of cluster villages and the essential services on health and education.

Original submission

Q 1. What do you think the vision should be? We broadly agree with MSDC outlined vision within the consultation document.

Q 2. Do you agree with the identified objectives? Please explain reasoning. Yes - Provided the infrastructure meets education, healthcare and transport needs of the growing population.

Q 3. Are there other objectives which should be added? Transport links to core villages is presently not acceptable and would need to be improved. Increased population needs to have an enhancement to our current healthcare provision as these are already stretched to capacity.

Q 4. What should be a priority across the district area? (please state which district) MSDC - Priority to downsizing from within and first time buyers allowing younger generations to stay local.

Q 5. What is most important for your town or village? Maintaining the village identity and growing the community provision within the environment to accommodate increased population. The Need for a safe and well lit footpath to accommodate young parents and their families to be able to reach the primary school on foot.

Q 5A. Do you agree or disagree with the identified key issues for compliance with the Duty-to-Cooperate for the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan? Please explain why.
Agree - East Anglia is a relatively cheap place to live in Southern England and transport links to London, Birmingham and other major cities need to be improved. It should be noted that this could push the price for properties up and there is still a need to keep properties affordable for local residents.
Q 6. Are there any other key planning issues which need to be considered in accordance with the Duty-to-Cooperate? Please explain why.
District wise Social Care and health services need to be enhanced to handle increased population.
Q 7. Do you agree with the proposed approach set out under Option HD1? If not, please explain why and what alternatives you propose.
Agree with option HD2 as we currently have two major building projects in for planning development and we would naturally assume they are included within the village quota expected.
Q 8. When allocating sites what scale of contingency should be applied? Please explain why.
There is a need for some contingency in order to protect against loss of the 5 year supply and therefore not allowing unplanned growth in unsuitable areas.
Q 9. Are there any specific measures that could be included within the Joint Local Plan that would assist with delivery?
Insist on a substantial financial penalty of % of Cil payments upfront.
Q 10. What factors or priorities should be set as triggers for reserve sites to come forward?
Loss of the 5 year supply.
Q 11. Do you agree with the proposed
criteria approach to rank settlements in the hierarchy? If not, please explain a suggested amendment or alternative.
Broadly agree
Q 12. Do you agree with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy? If no, please provide further details as to how the hierarchy should be amended.
Broadly agree. We would question the source of the data to substantiate this as it appears out of date.
Q 13. Which option(s) for housing spatial distribution do you think is the best? Please explain your answer.
MHD1 - As a core village we would want to keep our development proportionate to the population and we do not want to further develop our hamlet villages.
Q 14. Are there other realistic broad distribution options which should be considered? Please explain your answer.
Q 15. If a new settlement was to be planned in the area, where should it be located? Please explain your answer.
Within easy access to major transport links and employment.

Q 16. Should the Joint Local Plan include a requirement for new dwellings to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards?
Yes - Agree
Q 17. Do you have any views on the proposed approach towards self-build and custom build dwellings?
Self-build and custom build dwellings should not be exempt from CIL payments and should contribute towards parish infrastructure.
Q 18. What should the Councils' approach to Starter Homes be?
As identified in our housing needs survey there is a need for affordable housing for starter homes in proportion to housing stock within the area.
Q 19. Should the Councils be prioritising the provision of any particular types of homes? Out of our housing needs survey - 10 households stated they had a need. A further 5 households stated that they wanted to return to the village. A total of 15 households identified. There were an additional 15 households claiming a local connection on gateway to home choice. Indicating a combined need of up to 30 new houses. CAS recommendation would be to bring forward circa 10 new houses to begin with. This would need to be a mixture of affordable, family and retirement bungalows.

Q 20. Are there any other types of housing that should be planned for / required?
Assisted living or sheltered accommodation for the elderly
Q 21. How can the Councils promote / facilitate development of homes for private rent?
We currently have no data to make an appropriate comment to this question.
Q 22. In relation to affordable housing, do you consider the requirement should be set at a percentage other than the current 35%? If so, please provide reasons.
Q 23. To what extent should affordable housing be (or not be) prioritised over provision of other infrastructure where viability is an issue?
The value of land in our parish is not at a premium and therefore the viability of both social housing and larger dwellings are equal.
Q 24. In relation to affordable housing, should there be any preference for housing to accommodate key workers?
There is a recruitment problem for the health service and teaching and therefore it should be welcomed if an incentive for key workers was introduced.
Q 25. If Option RG2 is supported, what maximum percentage of market housing should be acceptable?
65% market housing and 35% affordable would be agreeable.
Q 26. Which option for the policy approach to rural growth do you think is most appropriate?
Q 27. Are there any other approaches to distributing development in rural areas that we should consider?
Consider impact of cluster villages and the essential services on health and education.
Q 28. Do you support the approach proposed for hamlets? If not please explain?
Yes - Agree
Q 29. What should the Councils' approach to provision of negotiated stopping places be?
There is currently provision for travellers within close proximity and therefore not deemed a requirement for our parish.
Q 30. Please submit details of any sites, or extensions to existing sites, which you consider suitable for allocation as Gypsy and Traveller sites or Travelling Showpeople sites.
Q 31. Should the Joint Local Plan include a policy which identifies areas where moorings would be acceptable in principal?
Q 32. If so, are there any specific locations where additional moorings could be located?
Q 33. Should we continue to identify existing employment areas and protect land and premises in these areas from redevelopment/conversion to other uses unless marketing evidence demonstrates there is no demand for employment use?
Yes - Agree
Q 34. If we continue to protect existing employment areas, which areas should be identified?
Agree to continue to protect existing employment areas.
Q 35. Are there any existing employment areas that could be reallocated to other uses?
Q 36. Should we identify areas where non-B class uses, such as car showrooms, tyre and exhaust centres and building material stores, can be located?
We have garage and MOT services at Old Newton and we have car sales and builders merchants at Bacton and we are close to Stowmarket for larger enterprises.
Q 37. Should there be a policy that allows a wider range of uses than just B class on all employment sites or selected employment sites?
Q 38. Should we allocate more than enough land to meet the forecast needs to enable more choice in the market and give flexibility to changing circumstances?
Q 39. Should we make specific employment provisions for small and medium sized enterprises? If so, how and where?
Q 40. If we expand, or allocate additional employment land where should these be?
Q 41. What approach should we take to supporting new business formation across the Districts?
Golden Hello's to businesses to attract them to the area, essential broadband provision.
Q 42. Do you consider that any of the sites put forward as part of the Call for Sites should be allocated for retail or commercial leisure use? Please state why.
No - We have industrial units and sporting facilities that suit the village needs.
Q 43. Are there any other sites that should be considered for retail or commercial leisure use?
Q 44. If you consider allocations for retail development should come forward as mixed use, please provide details.
Q 45. Do you agree with the proposed Town Centre boundaries, Primary Shopping Areas, Primary Shopping Frontages and Secondary Shopping Frontages? If not, please explain why.
N/A to Old Newton
Q 46. Do you agree with the approach to not define Primary Shopping Area boundaries within settlements other than the three main towns? If not, please explain why.
N/A to Old Newton
Q 47. Do you agree with the approach to maintain and increase retail provision within the District Centres? If not, please explain why.
N/A to Old Newton
Q 48. Do you agree with the proposed thresholds relating to the mix of uses within Primary Shopping Frontage? If not, please explain why
N/A to Old Newton
Q 49. Do you agree with the proposal to require an impact assessment for all edge of centre and out of centre retail proposals that are 400sqm gross floorspace or more? If not, please explain why.
Yes - Agree
Q 50. The Councils propose to protect RIA1-RIA5 uses in Core Villages and Hinterland Villages, and in local centres within towns. Do you consider this to be the correct approach?
Yes -Agree
Q 51. Do you have views on the Option BIO 1 and / or BIO 2? We have areas of significant scientific interest and therefore we agree with option Bio2.

Q 52. How should the local plan consider the impact of renewable technologies? What types of effects should be assessed within the policy criteria?
Option RE2 is our preferred option.
Q 53. Do you support the Council's initial preference to include water efficiency measures in new build? If no, please explain why?
The East is recognised as having low rainfall and therefore it is only right that water supplies are treated with respect.
Q 54. Are there any other additional environmental standards Babergh and Mid Suffolk should be requiring? If so, please provide details and reasons why.
Limited expertise but we welcome renewable infrastructure on new properties
Q 55. Are there any other approaches that the Joint Local Plan could take to protect the landscape?
Sympathetic landscaping to new developments.
Q 56. Should additional protection be given to areas which form part of a landscape project area but which aren't designated?
We would like to see new development to include open spaces and recreational areas with suitable planting to ensure the rural nature of the development is maintained and preserved.
Q 57. How can the Joint Local Plan make the most of the heritage assets?
We need to ensure our heritage areas and assets are protected and if threatened comprehensive public consultation to judge strength of public opinion.
Q 58. What level of protection should be given to identified non-designated assets? Are there any specific situations in which the balance should favour or not favour protection of identified non-designated assets?
Consult local opinion through public forums.
Q 59. Should a more flexible approach toward climate change objectives be adopted where this would assist in protecting a heritage asset?
We should protect at all costs our heritage assets as they cannot be replaced.
Q 60. Is there any aspect of design that priority should be given to?
Needs to be in-keeping and sympathetic to the existing properties and environment.
Q 61. Is there any aspect of design that should be introduced to the Councils' policies?
Not that we can see.
Q 62. Is there an area of design related to past development that you consider needs to be addressed in future development?
Drainage is a major issue in certain parts of our village and therefore any development needs to have a comprehensive plan to deal with grey water and run off water combined. Broadband is an essential provision to properties and the broadband infrastructure needs to be enhanced within our village as a priority.
Q 63. Which option do you consider most appropriate? Please explain why? INF 2 - Especially with regard to education as our village school is now full to capacity and because it is a successful school and is attracting out of catchment children and therefore it is essential to increase capacity and ensure sufficient funding is put in place when numbers increase. A robust and strategic plan must be put in place to ensure the provision is ready to accept increased numbers.

Q 64. What do you consider the key infrastructure issues in your community? Broadband is a major issue at present but is being addressed. As already mentioned there is a need for a footpath direct to the school, better parking in and around the school. Plans to extend the health provision within the locality especially with the explosion of houses in and around our neighbouring villages.

Q 65. What infrastructure issues do you consider to be a priority for the future?
Maintain broadband to a good quality. Enforcement of Speed limit restrictions through the village. Police presence is already significantly reduced in rural areas and this is a concern if we increase the number of properties.
Q 66. What infrastructure do you think would be needed to support the growth scenarios?
Drainage, public transport, education, health as already outlined in the above.
Q 67. What comments do you have on the proposed strategic approach to infrastructure delivery? It is essential that any infrastructure plan is developed in co-ordination with the parish council in partnership with the district council and we expect CIL payments to be given to the parish to support the development and enhancement of the infrastructure to maintain the nature of Old Newton and enhance it for the residents.

Q 68. Should a separate policy be developed to manage provision of education and healthcare?
Yes. This is a key area and a comprehensive approach needs to be developed to provide education at a consistent high quality to create a sound bedrock for a good village community. Our current healthcare provision is adequate but with the expected explosion of development in our neighbouring villages such as Mendlesham, Bacton and Haughley this needs to be addressed.

Q 69. Should the strategy of the Plan be focussed on addressing deprivation? With increased housing within the village we need to become eligible for bus services to Stowmarket. Currently public transport is not acceptable for deprived families. Our local support network is struggling to meet demand to assist the elderly and less fortunate to attend local supermarkets, market towns and health services.

Q 70. Are there any specific approaches that should be applied to address deprivation?
Social housing element is not adequate for the present need.
Q 71. Are there any other circumstances and / or provisions under which open space, sports facilities or community facilities should be required and / or protected?
Our current provision addresses above and beyond the needs of our parish.
Q 72. Through the Plan should any other areas of Local Green Space be identified and protected?
To provide safe play areas and open green spaces within any new development would be essential.
Q 73. Are there any specific facilities that should be included in the definition of community facilities?
Q 74. Do you consider the approach to identifying functional clusters appropriate for Babergh and Mid Suffolk? If not, please explain what would be your preferred approach?
Q 75. Do you consider the proposed new settlement boundaries to be appropriate? (please explain your answer) The following is in the parish council order of preference. The settlement boundaries were considered at both a public consultation and our monthly parish council meetings during the consultation period.

SS0131 is the parish council's preferred site for development as this is abutting the current village boundary. The parish council would like to see this land developed in phases and not densely populated with essential safe green spaces. The parish council would like developers to seriously consider access from Church Road as well as limited access from Greenacres and Mutton Meadow if brought to fruition.

SS1021 - This identified piece of land is felt to be ideal for smaller developments in Chapel Road and School Hill and will have a smaller impact on village life and give a more natural growth to the village.

The area identified as SS0012 is not the parish council preferred site but accept that this is already in the planning process with a live application. Should this development be successful we would naturally assume this development will count against our housing quota.

Q 76. Are there any other settlements that should be given new settlement boundaries? (please explain your answer)
27 Church Road is already within the curtilage of the village envelope, however it is not marked as part of the call for sites. The parish council would be in agreement should this be put forward for development. The parish council would also like to see this as part of the housing quota for the village if developed in the future.

Q 77. Is the threshold (10 well related dwellings) for identifying settlement boundaries appropriate?
Q 78. Do you consider the sites identified to be appropriate for allocation or inclusion within the settlement boundary? Yes - As already mentioned we do not consider Site SS0012 appropriate for development but accept this may be inevitable. If this development is approved, the parish council do wish to include the numbers as part of our quota.

Q 79. Are there any other sites/areas which would be appropriate for allocation? (If yes, please provide further information and complete a site submission form) No

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult