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.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Q62

Representation ID: 13195

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Consideration of the past to help inform the future should be the starting point. However, future design should not be beholden and sites should be considered on their own merits.

More details about Rep ID: 13195

Representation ID: 13043

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Our thoughts are of the Wolsey Grange application which had three story townhouses around its perimeter which would dominate the skyline both from the Chantry Vale valley, Chantry Park and the surrounding countryside. Apparently Taylor Wimpey's did this to make the development a statement. The Suffolk one collage is similarly dominant. These are conceited and selfish aims completely at odds with the special landscape policy for that site, and the council policy to preserve the best of our views and landscapes. It is quite a disappointment to gaze around the green Suffolk countryside and have your vision drawn to a big white square building set on top of the biggest hill.
Suffolk One should have its form broken up by the use of green shaded panels or bands to prevent its dominance of the landscape.
It should be a design objective that buildings / developments should be blended into the landscape using every practical means. Typically by putting low rise buildings around its perimeter, and any desire to make a statement of a development should be restricted to design that does not impose itself on the landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 13043

Representation ID: 12980

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

Wolsey Grange application which had three story townhouses around its perimeter would dominate the skyline both from the Chantry Vale valley, Chantry Park and the surrounding countryside. Apparently Taylor Wimpey's did this to make the development a statement.
The Suffolk one collage is similarly dominant. These are conceited and selfish aims completely at odds with the special landscape policy for that site, and the council policy to preserve the best of our views and landscapes.
It should be a design objective that buildings / developments should be blended into the landscape using every practical means.

More details about Rep ID: 12980

Representation ID: 12512

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)

Summary:

Consideration of the past to help inform the future should be the starting point. However, future design should not be beholden and sites should be considered on their own merits.

More details about Rep ID: 12512

Representation ID: 12422

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12422

Representation ID: 12356

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Consideration of the past to help inform the future should be the starting point. However, future design should not be beholden and sites should be considered on their own merits.

More details about Rep ID: 12356

Representation ID: 11958

COMMENT The Sudbury Society (Mr Stephen Thorpe)

Summary:

The importance of good housing design needs to be accepted at this early stage. Recent developments are of a poor quality and must in future pay more regard to the Suffolk Design Guide and complement the town's fine historic character rather than diminish it.

More details about Rep ID: 11958

Representation ID: 11803

COMMENT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

On Design, I support the councils approach. However, I would suggest that The Suffolk Design Guide for Residential Areas (2000) is overdue for review. I'm not sure whether a requirement to paint Barn Conversions in Black is seriously appropriate!

More details about Rep ID: 11803

Representation ID: 11713

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Yes: by way of example, it was resolved to grant the Chilton Woods development outline planning permission when in my view it fails to conform to its specific governing policy CS4 in that a master plan has not been provided only an "illustrative master plan" which provides no commitment as to the future design. An integrated standalone development was required.
As the Parish Council most affected I and others fear that what will happen is a piecemeal development of some 500 houses with none of the required community facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 11713

Representation ID: 11071

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that the Suffolk Design Guide for Residential Areas 2000 should be reviewed, updated and adopted by the District Councils.

More details about Rep ID: 11071

Representation ID: 10832

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 10832

Representation ID: 10673

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Double glazing, loft and wall insulation, drainage, solar panels

More details about Rep ID: 10673

Representation ID: 10361

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Consideration of the past to help inform the future should be the starting point. However, future design should not be beholden and sites should be considered on their own merits.

More details about Rep ID: 10361

Representation ID: 9873

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

Good historical design should be followed, especially plain and simple. Scale and simplicity of traditional Suffolk buildings should be used to give local character and distinctiveness to new development. Lessons from recent past are garages too small for family-sized vehicle, parking standards and road safety issues resulting from inadequate garage size, on-site and off-site parking and visitor parking. High density housing developments often result in inadequate parking for householders and visitors. Wagtail Drive (Cedars Park) is a prime example of allowing development which leads to problems - especially for emergency services, bin collection etc.

More details about Rep ID: 9873

Representation ID: 9756

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Yes. The size and design of the buildings are important in historic areas of settlements. The new houses being built on the 'Market Pyghtle' site are too large for the site and they have miniscule gardens which are inappropriate for a village. This arrangement is more for a town situation. Other houses built in the older parts of the village in recent years have been out of keeping with the general design. Thus the ambience of the village is steadily being destroyed by inappropriately designed new housing.

Areas of design related to past development such as the quintessential Suffolk houses should be incorporated in a sensitive and sensible manner.

More details about Rep ID: 9756

Representation ID: 9570

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Provision of open space (as layout) should be a universal responsibility, not just a new homes one. Maintenance by the District should be universal and not patchy otherwise why have a "District rate", it could be reduced in some areas!

More details about Rep ID: 9570

Representation ID: 9466

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

If sustainable drainage ponds are used in a development they must appear natural.

More details about Rep ID: 9466

Representation ID: 9173

COMMENT J D Pickett

Summary:

Lessons need to be learned from design mistakes of the past, development should blend with the landscape not overwhelm it.

More details about Rep ID: 9173

Representation ID: 8618

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The dominant feature in any developed landscape should remain the landscape not the development.

More details about Rep ID: 8618

Representation ID: 8518

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Design lessons to be learnt - Wolsey Grange has three-storey town houses on the highest point of the site thus dominating the sky line of Chantry Vale and damaging same. There is a need to ensure that layouts/designs/forms and massing compliment and enhance the landscape and character of the area to create communities with a sense of place.

More details about Rep ID: 8518

Representation ID: 8319

COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)

Summary:

Rural communities often suffer from a lack of car parking in the vicinity of retail and similar businesses, and development proposals should include consideration of providing additional parking for community benefit.

More details about Rep ID: 8319

Representation ID: 8227

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

Often housing from large national contractors on huge dense sites do not assimilate into the character of the local existing houses. Often, they use a 'one plan fits all' no matter where they are in the UK. Avoidance of 'Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes looking just the same'.

More details about Rep ID: 8227

Representation ID: 8054

SUPPORT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

Future developments must prioritise locally distinct design and/or create a strong sense of place when dealing with volume housebuilders. This could be achieved by adopting supplementary planning documents on design and/or updating the Suffolk Design Guide as well as through increased use by the councils of the Suffolk Design Review Panel.

More details about Rep ID: 8054

Representation ID: 7705

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Road layout to allow for pavement users including wheelchair users and buggies, cyclists and emergency vehicles.

More details about Rep ID: 7705

Representation ID: 7689

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes: by way of example, it was resolved to grant the Chilton Woods development outline planning permission when in our view it fails to conform to its specific governing policy CS4 in that a master plan has not been provided only an "illustrative master plan" which provides no commitment as to the future design. An integrated standalone development was required. We as the Parish Council most affected fear that what will happen is a piecemeal development of some 500 houses with none of the required community facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 7689

Representation ID: 7621

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Landmark House. Suffolk One. Tesco. Perimeter buildings on the proposed Wolsey Grange. It is inappropriate for high-rise buildings to dwarf / overwhelm rural landscapes. The visual impact on landscape, impact on biodiversity, light pollution and architectural merit of proposed developments all require better consideration.

More details about Rep ID: 7621

Representation ID: 7550

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Landmark House. Suffolk One. Tesco. Perimeter buildings on the proposed Wolsey Grange. It is inappropriate for high-rise buildings to dwarf / overwhelm rural landscapes. The visual impact on landscape, impact on biodiversity, light pollution and architectural merit of proposed developments all require better consideration.

More details about Rep ID: 7550

Representation ID: 7479

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

The Wolsey grange development were proposing 3 story buildings and would therefore dominate the skyline. This would completely destroy the vista over the vale of Chantry. This is comparable with the Dedham vale area with the undulating hills, I think a real gem in that part of South West Ipswich. It is very easy to build on green field land as the developers have little expense in preparing land.

More details about Rep ID: 7479

Representation ID: 7154

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Scale; parking; rural approach versus urban in design terms; affordable housing to be built to Secured by Design SBD New Homes 2016 accreditation; all development s to follow the Suffolk Design Code for Residential Areas and Manual for Street Crime Prevention.

More details about Rep ID: 7154

Representation ID: 7057

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

Generic English Builder design should never be permitted. Development should not rob an area of its traditional identity.

More details about Rep ID: 7057

Representation ID: 7042

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Not known

More details about Rep ID: 7042

Representation ID: 6462

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

As Stowmarket expands still further we believe that greater attention should be given to residential design. New estates need to reach an aspiring threshold of quality of design and not all look like a poor pastiche of the Suffolk vernacular. We realise this is hard work, as national developers are invariably focussed on the practical aspects of delivery, with no great vision of what it is they deliver. Very often elements within Councils and national governments share these same traits, so the Council needs to decide what it stands for.

More details about Rep ID: 6462

Representation ID: 6394

COMMENT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Wolsey Grange has 3 story townhouses on the highest point of the site dominating the skyline of Chantry Vale. There is a need to ensure that the layouts/designs/forms and massing complement and enhance the landscape and character of the area and to create communities with a sense of place.

More details about Rep ID: 6394

Representation ID: 6139

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

Outline planning permissions to be avoided and detailed permissions for sites of over 10 units to be put in place, subject to some reserved conditions. This should avoid any subsequent renegotiation with the LPA and misconceptions with the communities concerned.

More details about Rep ID: 6139

Representation ID: 6013

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Nothing immediately springs to mind.

More details about Rep ID: 6013

Representation ID: 5937

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Note, recent planning approval for extension to Keddington Gate on Keddington Hill. It could have looked like one original buildings rather than a bit added on later.

More details about Rep ID: 5937

Representation ID: 5643

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

2 Oldfield Road - Totally out of character with street scene. Would not like this to be repeated on any other dwelling in the area.

More details about Rep ID: 5643

Representation ID: 5471

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

'IPSWICH FRINGE WOLSEY GRANGE STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN DOCUMENT' showed complete lack of ambition and lack of ability to understand or implement good design thoughtfully set in a landscape. Few existing landscape features proposed for retention; 'off the shelf' housing and industrial, retail design. Depressing lack of vision that should not be repeated

More details about Rep ID: 5471

Representation ID: 5146

COMMENT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

will be addressed in the local neighbourhood plan.

More details about Rep ID: 5146

Representation ID: 5030

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

Variation of design within larger developments should be given weight in larger applications.

More details about Rep ID: 5030

Representation ID: 4970

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

The impact of any design should not be detrimental to existing dwellings or infrastructure. Designs should be sympathetic to and harmonious with existing nearby structures.

More details about Rep ID: 4970

Representation ID: 4806

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Yes, the ongoing enforcement issues with the Walled Garden (Grade 2 listed historic asset) development and the failure of the Babergh to have an effective Enforcement Team.

More details about Rep ID: 4806

Representation ID: 4733

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Outline planning permissions to be avoided and detailed permissions for sites of over 10 units to be put in place, subject to some reserved conditions. This should avoid any subsequent renegotiation with the LPA and misconceptions with the communities concerned.

More details about Rep ID: 4733

Representation ID: 4704

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

Infill site development and scale should be appropriate to the surroundings.

More details about Rep ID: 4704

Representation ID: 4470

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

Approve only the designs, layouts and styles inconsistent with the design guidance, local practice and appropriate to their context and setting.

Pre-application consultation with affected communities is supposed to be happening but is not; local views are generally constructive and must be actively sought prior to application submission. Considerably more weight given to Parish Council views.

More details about Rep ID: 4470

Representation ID: 3712

COMMENT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

'IPSWICH FRINGE WOLSEY GRANGE STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN DOCUMENT' showed complete lack of ambition and lack of ability to understand or implement good design thoughtfully set in a landscape. Few existing landscape features proposed for retention; 'off the shelf' housing and industrial, retail design. Depressing lack of vision that should not be repeated.

More details about Rep ID: 3712

Representation ID: 3529

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

Attention should be drawn to a number of creative local developments for sheltered/warden controlled communities which are considered exemplars from a design and construction perspective and the council are encouraged to incorporate these designs into future long term planning to help address the increase in the proportion of the elderly population in the council's area.

More details about Rep ID: 3529

Representation ID: 3499

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Probably the Wolsey Grange application which had three story townhouses around its perimeter which would dominate the skyline both from the Chantry Vale valley, Chantry Park and the surrounding countryside. Apparently the developer did this to make the development a statement. The Suffolk one collage is similarly dominant. These are conceited and selfish aims completely at odds with the special landscape policy for that site, and the council aims to preserve the best of our views and landscapes. It is quite a disappointment to gaze around the green Suffolk countryside and have your vision drawn to a big white square building set on top of the biggest hill.

More details about Rep ID: 3499

Representation ID: 3019

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

To take note of our Village Design Statement

More details about Rep ID: 3019

Representation ID: 2964

COMMENT Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson)

Summary:

By ceasing to approve designs, layouts and styles inconsistent with the design guidance, local practice and inappropriate to their context and setting or in the wrong location!

Pre-application consultation with affected communities is supposed to be happening but is not; local views are generally constructive and must be actively sought prior to application submission.

More details about Rep ID: 2964

Representation ID: 2670

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council believes yes - urbanised features together with development style and materials not in-keeping with the context and locality.

More details about Rep ID: 2670

Representation ID: 2634

COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)

Summary:

There appears to be a regular failure of designers to demonstrate how a design has been evolved for the site as demonstrated by submission of many inadequate Design and Access Statements. In addition many schemes seem to have difficulty in properly designing for the vehicles to be accommodated within development and achieving basic design principles. These failures can be attributed in many instances of inadequate application of Council Design Guides and other Government policy on design issues.

More details about Rep ID: 2634

Representation ID: 2308

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

Yes - the lack of regard to whether the design of new development fits in with actual (not presumed) local style needs to be addressed by viewing the proposals in their actual context.

More details about Rep ID: 2308

Representation ID: 2256

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Lack of car parking. Cedars Park in Stowmarket is a prime example of planners only allocating 1 to 1.5 car parking spaces per house, to force people to buy less cars! You can't force what is a necessity in Suffolk, so every house/flat needs two parking spaces.

More details about Rep ID: 2256

Representation ID: 1958

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

By not to keep repeating the same mistakes in approving designs, layouts and styles inconsistent with the Suffolk Design Guide, inappropriate to their context and setting or in the wrong location!

More details about Rep ID: 1958

Representation ID: 1861

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

The issue of infrastructure always raises its head as it is often not fulfilled 'as promised'. Some concrete guarantees should be obtained at the start.

More details about Rep ID: 1861

Representation ID: 1785

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

The issue of infrastructure always raises its head as it is often not fulfilled 'as promised'. Some concrete guarantees should be obtained at the start.

More details about Rep ID: 1785

Representation ID: 1598

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Yes. Inappropriate design of buildings for the elderly and infirm

More details about Rep ID: 1598

Representation ID: 1280

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

In Hinterland Villages and Countryside gardens should not be less than a specified minimum size for newbuilds - particularly for starter homes where young families need 'play' space.

More details about Rep ID: 1280

Representation ID: 1166

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

too many dwellings in one place, limited parking, stretching local roads and services infrastructure and all looking like a standard developers template.
This plan allows for a framework which local consultees can action as appropriate to the locality.

More details about Rep ID: 1166

Representation ID: 1049

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Blandness and over development of poor housing estates

More details about Rep ID: 1049

Representation ID: 831

COMMENT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)

Summary:

Most certainly "yes". The overdevelopment and cramming of houses in Framlingham should give lessons that this should not be repeated. Frequently Framlingham is referred to as having been "ruined" by local residents.

More details about Rep ID: 831

Representation ID: 413

COMMENT Mr Ralph Carpenter

Summary:

The Suffolk Design Guide can be an unfortunate tool, blocking innovation, contextual design, sustainability and a respect for the natural environment.
It should no longer be used.

More details about Rep ID: 413

Representation ID: 320

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Some national house builders 'import' standard UK wide design, let have a regional feel. The best design comes from using an element of local materials. (Suffolk pine can be over used).

More details about Rep ID: 320

Representation ID: 233

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Large scale developments were too many house are built in the area provided. It might br better in these circumstances to build low rise flats.

More details about Rep ID: 233

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

Powered by OpusConsult