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) - Settlement Boundaries
COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen
Further thought needs to be given to planning consents that have been granted but not yet delivered.
Extensions to a settlement boundary are inappropriate if existing permissions have not been delivered.
The determination of settlement on the basis purely of numbers is over-simplistic. The setting and historical purpose of any collection of houses is important; for example, a collection of farm workers cottages located in the countryside should not necessarily establish a basis for a larger settlement. The existence of 'community' is also important.
OBJECT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)
For settlements at the top of the hierarchy - Urban Areas, Market towns and Core villages - specific site allocations will be made in the Local Plan which will have the effect of changing the settlement boundaries. For the smaller settlements the settlement boundary will be extended to include sites (presumably of much smaller scale or 'windfall development'16) which are considered appropriate for development. The distinction is too subtle and should be made much clearer.
OBJECT Mr Nigel Roberts
I also note at top of page 76 the document says that "The Councils have taken the approach........that Core Villages will have new growth identified and allocated in the new Local Plan through the allocation of new housing sites". This is of note because on this basis the decision to allocate sites would seem to have been taken already.......so why ask which option is preferred on page 42 RG1 (criteria based approach assessing each case on merit) v RG2 (allocating sites).
COMMENT Peter Warren
Settlement boundaries must be retained, land outside of this is countryside. New boundaries would appear to have been drawn to include development sites which have not been delivered. Additionally, the existence and retention of community identity is hugely important and creeping coalescence must be avoided.
OBJECT Mrs Carol Marshall
* I also feel that the determination of settlement on the basis purely of numbers is over-simplistic. The setting and historical purpose of any collection of houses is important; for example, a collection of farm workers cottages located in the countryside should not necessarily establish a basis for a larger settlement. The existence of 'community' is also important.
OBJECT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)
Top paragraph (p76) refers to boundary flexing. Where is there a definition of boundary flexing?
OBJECT Earl Stonham Parish Council (Mrs Jennie Blackburn)
Pages 75-76, 229 and 230 - the chapter on Settlement Boundaries requires clarification: when is the "next consultation stage of the Joint Local Plan" when "Hinterland Villages (Earl Stonham), Hamlets and Countryside villages will have boundary flexing to accommodate sites deemed appropriate for development"? (page76). The Parish Council feels this is critical for Earl Stonham, but no further details are given, including the proposed timetable.
COMMENT Mr Peter Powell
For the purposes of the JLP, settlement boundaries have been re-drawn on the basis of the current built-form and a number of additional principles addressing issues such as using physical boundaries, treatment of employment land, playing fields, churches etc. However, the new boundaries have also been drawn to include 'allocated [planning] sites and current planning permissions granted before 31 March 2017'. There is no requirement that development has started or is due to start on such sites.
OBJECT Ms Helen Davies
Settlement boundaries are used to identify where the principle of development has been established; land outside of settlement boundaries is countryside. Different planning considerations will apply to land outside of settlement boundaries to that within settlement boundaries.
The settlement boundaries across the Districts are viewed as either not reflective of the current built-up form (so need updating) or in need of flexing to permit appropriate small-scale development in rural communities thereby promoting rural vitality and diversity of housing market opportunities.
COMMENT mrs elizabeth clarke
Representing Lawshall Archive Group.
Lawshall village is made up of a number of separate hamlets based around Greens. The distinct character of the village has open spaces of natural significant views between these hamlets.
If these natural gaps and spaces between the housing settlements are eroded this would compromise the historical character of our village.
In our Neighbourhood Plan, which I now understand is law, it states that the villagers do not wish these open areas between settlement to be lost and the views obliterated and the overall character of the village detrimentally changed.
COMMENT Great Finborough Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)
Unclear why SS0860 proposed site for development has been accepted outside the proposed settlement boundary. Concerns that this will impact detrimentally upon the landscape and be unsustainable.