Home > Planning > Planning Policy

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

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) - Q75

Representation ID: 13224

OBJECT Building Partnerships Ltd represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)

Summary:

The Consultation Document recognises that the past approach to identifying settlement boundaries is outdated, therefore the Local Plan should indicate that significant adjustments will be necessary in appropriate growth locations. However, the proposed settlement boundary identified at Appendix 3 for the sustainably located Ipswich Fringe village of Washbrook remains tightly drawn, and for this reason should be reviewed.

More details about Rep ID: 13224

Representation ID: 13004

OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

No. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 13004

Representation ID: 12872

COMMENT Tidal Hill Limited represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

As indicated above we consider the role of Wherstead is unnecessarily constrained, which could be overcome by either an extension of the Babergh/Ipswich fringe designation or allocations as expressed elsewhere in this letter for employment and mixed-use development.

More details about Rep ID: 12872

Representation ID: 12773

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 12773

Representation ID: 12768

OBJECT Building Partnerships Ltd. represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)

Summary:

The Consultation Document recognises that the past approach to identifying settlement boundaries is outdated, therefore the Local Plan should indicate that significant adjustments will be necessary in appropriate growth locations. However, the proposed settlement boundary identified at Appendix 3 for the sustainably located Ipswich Fringe village of Washbrook remains tightly drawn, and for this reason should be reviewed.

More details about Rep ID: 12768

Representation ID: 12717

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

New boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered.. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 12717

Representation ID: 12627

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 12627

Representation ID: 12546

SUPPORT Llanover Estates represented by LRM Planning Ltd (michael rees)

Summary:

We support the general approach towards settlement boundaries however we note that these will need to be updates to reflect new allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 12546

Representation ID: 12369

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

Summary:

These representations are to be read in conjunction with Section 2 that sets out the site promoted to the south of Stowmarket Road, Stowupland for residential development. This site adjoins Stowupland's settlement boundary, and is well-connected to the village and the wider area, including Stowmarket and access to the A14. It is considered that the Council should adopt a flexible approach to allocating sites outside of the settlement boundary, especially if they are well connected to Ipswich, Stowmarket, and the settlement boundary of villages, such as Stowupland.

More details about Rep ID: 12369

Representation ID: 12291

OBJECT Anthony Villar represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr William Nichols)

Summary:

The new Local Plan provides an opportunity to review all settlement boundaries within the District. Suitable flexibility of settlement boundaries will allow for further appropriate small-scale development opportunities, such as my client's site at land east of Ixworth Road, Norton. However, the boundaries that have been identified do not take into consideration sites submitted as part of the 'Call for Sites' exercise in summer 2016. Where possible settlement boundaries should follow physical boundaries such as roads and hedges.

More details about Rep ID: 12291

Representation ID: 12274

COMMENT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)

Summary:

Principle is generally supported although there is some confusion which needs to be resolved.
 settlement boundaries which reflect permitted development since boundaries were last defined
 settlement boundaries which provide some sites for future development at the smaller settlements, whilst not specifically identifying or quantifying new development sites
 why have so many lower tier and smaller settlements been shown with 'potential development sites' in Appendix 3 when this would be contrary to the 'spatial distribution' principles on p28 onwards
 whether the larger settlements (Core Villages upwards) should rely on settlement boundaries to define development sites or whether the designation of specific development sites will take precedence and result in new settlement boundaries.

The focus of this Response is to propose a development site at Bildeston and any comment about the settlement boundary will be addressed there,

More details about Rep ID: 12274

Representation ID: 12115

OBJECT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Object to the use of settlement limits as they are accompanied by policies that seek to preclude otherwise sustainable development from coming forward. NPPF is clear that development which is sustainable should go ahead. The use of settlement limits to restrict suitable development from coming forward on the edge of settlements would not accord with the NPPF. The setting of strict settlement boundaries does not allow adequate flexibility for development to come forward outside the settlement boundary if this is required (for example due to a shortfall of housing land).

Essential that settlement boundaries are accompanied by suitable flexible policies that enable sustainable forms of development to come forward. Likely to include a criteria based approach that provided flexibility for the development of sites at the settlement edge,
together with a suitable range of housing allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 12115

Representation ID: 12055

COMMENT Montague Asset Management represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr William Nichols)

Summary:

The new Local Plan provides an opportunity to review all settlement boundaries within the District. Suitable flexing of settlement boundaries will allow for further appropriate small-scale development opportunities. This statement is supported, however we consider the boundaries that have been identified do not take into consideration sites submitted as part of the 'Call for Sites' exercise in summer 2016. It is agreed that possible settlement boundaries should follow physical boundaries such as roads and hedges.

More details about Rep ID: 12055

Representation ID: 11889

OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 11889

Representation ID: 11740

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

I refer to Chilton Parish Council's letter of 9 November regarding the failure to classify Chilton Parish as an independent settlement within pages 25 to 27 of this document. It has only been referenced within the Sudbury settlement "(including part of Chilton and part of
Great Cornard)". Parishioners and other parties seeking to comment on Chilton will fail to find Chilton listed as a Parish which is misleading. It is noted that Great Cornard does not suffer the same fate as Chilton.
I object to the proposed new settlement boundaries as shown on the Sudbury (including part of Chilton and part of Great Cornard - map shown in Appendix 2 on page 179).

More details about Rep ID: 11740

Representation ID: 11729

COMMENT Haughley Park Consortium represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

These representations relate to land at Haughley Park and Lawn Farm.

We consider that the site is within close proximity to the settlement of Woolpit, which offers a range of facilities. The site also benefits from close proximity to the A14 which provides connections to Ipswich in the east and Bury St Edmunds to the west.

In light of this, it is considered that the Council should adopt a flexible approach to allocating sites outside of the settlement boundary.

More details about Rep ID: 11729

Representation ID: 11571

OBJECT Annette Powell

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 11571

Representation ID: 11524

COMMENT Mr S. E. Gray represented by Savills UK Ltd (Ms Lynette Swinburne)

Summary:

Until a clear policy approach is put forward in response to the questions about Spatial Distribution (13-15) and Rural Growth and Development (26-28), we reserve the opportunity to comment on the approach to settlement boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 11524

Representation ID: 11380

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 11380

Representation ID: 10962

OBJECT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 10962

Representation ID: 10895

OBJECT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

The settlement boundaries within the existing Development Plan are predicated on a very different set of circumstances to that which exist today, and do not account for the current housing need. As such, they should be amended to enable current and future development needs over the plan period to be met.

More details about Rep ID: 10895

Representation ID: 10821

OBJECT Mr AWR Lockhart

Summary:

Re: Cornard Tye
If the intention is to restrict development outside of the marked area then there are conditions already in place and the identification of this settlement as outlined seems pointless.

More details about Rep ID: 10821

Representation ID: 10762

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.
* We 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.

More details about Rep ID: 10762

Representation ID: 10691

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 10691

Representation ID: 10620

OBJECT Harrow Estates (Miss Cindy Wan)

Summary:

Unclear why separate comments are south on the proposed settlement boundaries and potential land for development. The housing and infrastructure requirements for each settlement and the land options available should be considered when proposing an appropriate settlement boundary. These considerations are naturally interlinked.

Proposed settlement boundary for Elmswell differs marginally from the current settlement boundary. It fails to recognise the settlement's sustainability and the recent agreement on the suitability and sustainability of the settlement to deliver a major development on the Former Bacon Factory. Neither does it consider the local aspirations to deliver a relief road between Station Road and Church Road.

More details about Rep ID: 10620

Representation ID: 10558

OBJECT Countryside Properties (Mrs Emma Woods)

Summary:

Cut off date of 31st March 2017 for planning permissions granted being included in the settlement boundary is understood. However, we would consider it necessary for this cut-off date to be extended to reflect more recent planning approvals in the Regulation 19 and 22 consultations.

We suggest extending the settlement boundary to include those sites included within the housing numbers by virtue of inclusion as commitments. By doing so the Local Plan would clearly and effectively demonstrate where the principle of development has been established at the point of submission of the Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 10558

Representation ID: 10481

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 10481

Representation ID: 10449

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 10449

Representation ID: 10384

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

It is considered that the Council should adopt a flexible approach to allocating sites outside of the settlement boundary, especially if they are well connected to Ipswich and the settlement boundary of market towns, such as Needham Market.

More details about Rep ID: 10384

Representation ID: 10063

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

We understand the need to allocate housing sites to ensure the ongoing viability of
rural villages through the delivery of new homes. Our primary consideration is the
conservation of the historic environment and we continue to offer cautionary advice
regarding the identification of defined settlement boundaries. We understand that
these are applied to control development within and outside of the boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 10063

Representation ID: 10031

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 10031

Representation ID: 9882

OBJECT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

No. We feel strongly that the settlement boundary should be the edge of the current built form of the settlement and should not include planning permissions that have yet to be implemented within the proposed boundary. Sites with planning permission outside the existing boundary of the current built form of the settlement should either be site allocations (that can describe and include the proposed edge of settlement boundary), or clearly marked as a current commitment/new addition in some way.

More details about Rep ID: 9882

Representation ID: 9673

OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 9673

Representation ID: 9583

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

No. Including planning permissions that are not yet started ( we have 2,300) is illogical and using NPPF abutment rules would increase the spread of communities without the necessary balancing of other factors. Likewise including the SHELAA, which takes no account of all the other topics discussed is again illogical and flawed.

More details about Rep ID: 9583

Representation ID: 9479

OBJECT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

The new settlement boundary for Bacton includes an area of land described in the SHLAA of May 2016 as BAC01. This has outline permission for 47 dwellings, with significant S106 commitments. If the present permission lapses and the land remains within the settlement boundary, it could be developed piecemeal, without the constraints of the agreement, particularly the requirement for a footpath to the village centre.

More details about Rep ID: 9479

Representation ID: 9408

OBJECT Mr Prior represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

The approach to the new settlement boundaries to provide flexibility for new development in rural areas in line with national policy and guidance is welcomed. It is important to have settlement boundaries and not solely rely on the restrictive approach of sites only coming forward through new allocations.
Settlement boundaries should not be too tightly drawn and should allow for future development over the plan period. The Woolpit settlement boundary should be amended to include Land to the north of Woolpit.

More details about Rep ID: 9408

Representation ID: 9396

SUPPORT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

The current proposals are acceptable. The protocol for changing the boundaries in the future needs to be clarified and shared.

More details about Rep ID: 9396

Representation ID: 9330

OBJECT J W Baldwin Farms represented by Pegasus Group (Mr Robert Barber)

Summary:

The settlement boundary for Eye should include the site area of approved planning application (subject at s106) LPA Ref: 3563/15. Any allocations made in the Joint Local Plan should also be included in the settlement boundary.

More details about Rep ID: 9330

Representation ID: 9243

OBJECT The Gooderham Family and ESCO Developments Ltd represented by Cheffins Planning & Development (Mr Jon Jennings)

Summary:

It is considered that the proposed settlement boundary for Bacton has been arbitrarily drawn and does not take account the impact of proposed allocations on the setting of both Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings and the landscape setting of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 9243

Representation ID: 9227

OBJECT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 9227

Representation ID: 9095

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

No, they do not take into consideration the distinct character and nature of existing communities and villages eroding their identity.

More details about Rep ID: 9095

Representation ID: 8977

COMMENT Nellie Dickson, Sworders on behalf of Pye Charitable Settlement represented by Sworders (Miss Nellie Dickson)

Summary:

We do not object to the principle of new settlement boundaries but have noted some inconsistencies as to how the boundaries have been drawn. We propose alterations to the Haughley Green settlement boundary.

More details about Rep ID: 8977

Representation ID: 8976

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8976

Representation ID: 8947

OBJECT Mrs Louise Wakefield

Summary:

Leave the boundaries of Bourne Hill IP2 8ND as they are. It is a waste of administrative time & tax payers money to redraw them, that will only serve to laden the pockets of developers as they will then be able to tag on new homes on existing dwellings, or worryingly infill from the top of Wherstead to the bottom. Bourne Hall has been standing for over 500 years in a rural location it deserves to stand for another 500 in a rural setting. We owe it to the next generations, to protect our history, our architecture and our countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 8947

Representation ID: 8911

COMMENT Mr Simon Pearce

Summary:

The new boundary is not appropriate. The houses were given exceptional permission to be built in the AONB. The proposed settlement boundary will remove that exceptionality.

More details about Rep ID: 8911

Representation ID: 8889

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

The approach seems pragmatic and reasonable

More details about Rep ID: 8889

Representation ID: 8805

COMMENT The Woodland Trust (Mr Nick Sandford)

Summary:

We do not have detailed knowledge of the proposed settlement boundaries.

Our concern is that the Council avoids and development which would be likely to have a direct or indirect negative impact on any area of ancient woodland or on ancient or veteran trees. We would be happy to advise on indirect impacts in particular, which might occur where a development is proposed adjacent to an ancient wood or ancient tree.

More details about Rep ID: 8805

Representation ID: 8799

OBJECT Portland Planning (Gillian Davidson)

Summary:

Settlement boundaries for hamlets totally arbitrary and inconsistent - cuts through some sites, inexplicably omits others. 10 or more dwellings do not make a sustainable location for further development. Arbitrary number chosen as threshold for 'settlement'. Suggest don't attempt to define settlements smaller than hinterland village and allow infilling elsewhere where it is demonstrated that development would be sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 8799

Representation ID: 8632

SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

Support BND1 Would be a sensible approach

More details about Rep ID: 8632

Representation ID: 8605

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

These should be updated to take account of recent/in progress developments not proposed development as these may not come to fruition.

More details about Rep ID: 8605

Representation ID: 8559

OBJECT Mr Nigel Hughes

Summary:

It is essential for biodiversity and to respect the character that Babergh keep the protective shields around the BUABs. Lawshall is a series of Hamlets and we need to respect that nature needs the space to maintain its precious ecosystem.
Nigel Hughes Co Founder Green Light Trust

More details about Rep ID: 8559

Representation ID: 8379

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

Summary:

We need a settlement boundary that includes adequate development land to meet the needs for additional housing for a period of approximately 10 years. At 10 yearly intervals landowners should be invited to bid in additional sites for consideration in redrawing the settlement boundary for a further period of 10 years. This should provide adequate control over progressive development to ensure that sites are reviewed locally to meet the needs of the community and encourage evolutionary change. Therefore, the settlement boundary should identify a subset of the proposed development sites for priority development, with the remainder in reserve.

More details about Rep ID: 8379

Representation ID: 8334

OBJECT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

The proposals amount to a choice between allowing Babergh to do what they will with the existing settlement boundaries or alternatively, for Babergh to revoke them. i.e. offering no choice at all.

Babergh Planning Policy presently includes a requirement to prove exceptional and justifiable need as a prerequisite for approval of development outside of existing settlement boundaries (and so in countryside) as Babergh learnt to their cost recently in the High Court.

This is clearly an attempt to make development easier by relaxing existing settlement boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 8334

Representation ID: 8064

OBJECT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

We do not object to the principle of new settlement boundaries but note inconsistencies on how the boundaries are drawn. It is unclear why potentially suitable residential SHELAA sites have been excluded. The desk top exercise is not sufficiently thorough to give a robust and defensible set of outcomes.

More details about Rep ID: 8064

Representation ID: 7978

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

No.
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.

More details about Rep ID: 7978

Representation ID: 7844

COMMENT Green Light Trust (Mr Ashley Seaborne)

Summary:

GLT strongly urges Babergh to retain the settlement boundaries for Lawshall described as Built Up Area Boundaries (BUABs) in the Lawshall NP. These are in line with retaining Lawshall's character as mentioned above. By controlling development in this particular way, the open spaces between the hamlets / settlements will continue to provide crucial wildlife corridors along the ancient hedgerows and ditches between the wildlife havens of woodlands, village greens and the many private conservation areas across the parish as shown on the character area maps in the Lawshall Character Assessment, one of the Neighbourhood Plan's accompanying documents.

More details about Rep ID: 7844

Representation ID: 7837

OBJECT Mr John Foster

Summary:

Settlement boundaries set by the District Councils have been routinely ignored and are generally unhelpful. Neighbourhood plans and community preference should be developed to provide advisory boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 7837

Representation ID: 7714

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

I do not consider the new boundaries to be appropriate.
All development around the edge of Stowmarket which is a natural extension of the town, should form part of Stowmarket and all development which is a natural extension of village settlements shall form part of those villages.

More details about Rep ID: 7714

Representation ID: 7699

OBJECT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

We refer to our letter of 10 November 2017. CPC find it difficult to understand how the Parish of Chilton has not been classified as an independent settlement within pages 25 to 27 of this document. It has only been referenced within the Sudbury settlement "(including part of Chilton and part of Great Cornard)". Parishioners and other parties seeking to comment on Chilton will fail to find Chilton listed as a Parish which is misleading. We object to the proposed new settlement boundaries as shown on the Sudbury (including part of Chilton and part of Great Cornard).

More details about Rep ID: 7699

Representation ID: 7630

OBJECT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 7630

Representation ID: 7567

OBJECT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7567

Representation ID: 7538

OBJECT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

NO 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.

More details about Rep ID: 7538

Representation ID: 7449

SUPPORT Mr Richard Milne

Summary:

The option to review and designate boundaries for all settlements above a threshold of 10 dwellings adjacent to or fronting an existing highway is considered appropriate. The settlement of the Street, Wickham Skeith, is sustainably sited fronting an existing highway with a bus stop outside and within close proximity to nearby facilities in Eye and Gislingham. By designating a settlement boundary it allows for a more proportionate distribution of development across the district and combined with a flexible approach to development outside of settlement boundaries would be well placed to absorb some further small scale development to the west.

More details about Rep ID: 7449

Representation ID: 7444

COMMENT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

No idea, there are far too many to make a serious comment and the maps lack definition to be sure. For Washbrook, there are existing houses in the village (on Back Lane) that have been drawn outside the boundary but risk being surrounded on all sides by the village boundary. Seems odd and I don't know what the effect of that will be.

More details about Rep ID: 7444

Representation ID: 7381

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

Some boundaries are easy to define others continue to shift with development. Cut off point should be applicable to counteract over development.

More details about Rep ID: 7381

Representation ID: 7048

OBJECT Mr. David Cutts

Summary:

Babergh; Great Cornard; Land alongside Prosptect Hill represents the crossing of a natural boundary. It should not be included it represents the thin end of the developers wedge.

More details about Rep ID: 7048

Representation ID: 6778

SUPPORT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

The settlement boundary proposed for Beyton is acceptable

More details about Rep ID: 6778

Representation ID: 6580

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

Yes, settlement boundaries are readily understood by the whole development industry and local people. They are a straightforward planning tool. With a 5year land supply provided by the Plan, boundaries will help steer development to the most acceptable locations.

More details about Rep ID: 6580

Representation ID: 6488

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

x

More details about Rep ID: 6488

Representation ID: 6474

OBJECT Mr M Crouch

Summary:

Harkstead:

Object to the proposed extension to the settlement boundary behind our house in Harkstead. Quite unsuitable for any new development due to the loss of residential amenity this would cause to adjacent properties. No consistency with approach taken in the case of 19 other properties in the village.

More details about Rep ID: 6474

Representation ID: 6203

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 6203

Representation ID: 6180

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

yes, but need to be reviewed periodically.

More details about Rep ID: 6180

Representation ID: 6119

SUPPORT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes yes

More details about Rep ID: 6119

Representation ID: 5961

OBJECT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

No. Workhouse Green should be countryside. Poor facilities as described earlier.

More details about Rep ID: 5961

Representation ID: 5921

OBJECT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

No, they do not take into consideration the distinct character and nature of existing communities and villages eroding their identity.

More details about Rep ID: 5921

Representation ID: 5670

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

No. Thorington Park is not included in the Pinewood Parish Map/Plan

More details about Rep ID: 5670

Representation ID: 5515

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

The proposed settlement boundary in the area of Springvale Farm, The Beagle Public House and to the north of Poplar farm Cottages if allowed will result in the coalescence of Ipswich and Sproughton. This area is particularly attractive from a visual perspective and should not be developed.

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5515

Representation ID: 5500

OBJECT Mr Paul Rogers

Summary:

The proposed new settlement boundary for Woolverstone is inappropriate. The extension eastwards to include the buildings around the Walled Garden development is inappropriate because this falls within the AONB. The development was only granted on the provision it was limited to the initial scope and with a purpose of preserving the Grade 2 listed structures. The Walled Garden development should therefore remain as "countryside" within the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB.

More details about Rep ID: 5500

Representation ID: 5174

OBJECT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

No - a detail explanation is required from MSDC on the change to the settlement boundary on Drs Lane. The change to incorporate the permissions already granted for development at Grove Farm and Meadow Way are acceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 5174

Representation ID: 5064

SUPPORT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

The proposed are acceptable provided the Hinterland status of Beyton is not changed. However, recently planning permission was granted by MSDC Planning Authority outside of the current settlement boundary using delegated powers. Objection from Beyton Parish Council was ignored. Current protocol gives the Planning Authority arbitrary powers to vary the Settlement Boundary without reference to the Parish Council or MSDC Planning Committee.
In a recent speech to NALC the Secretary of State advised the importance of Parish Councils being the direct interface with the public. All proposed changes to Settlement Boundaries should be agreed with the Parish Council

More details about Rep ID: 5064

Representation ID: 5047

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

Yes for Brantham, but we are aware that these seem to be flexible according to circumstance.

More details about Rep ID: 5047

Representation ID: 5046

OBJECT Ms Jennifer Cox

Summary:

The proposed extension is proposed contrary to your own methodology. It encompasses valuable AONB land and is in contradiction to the East Bergholt neighbourhood plan. I strongly object.

More details about Rep ID: 5046

Representation ID: 4989

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

Yes. There remain however many smaller groupings which fall below the threshold level of 10 dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 4989

Representation ID: 4875

OBJECT Dr Tanna represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

Settlement boundaries should not be too tightly drawn or subdivide dwelling houses or their curtilages and should allow for future development. In the smaller rural areas where there are no allocations it is important to draw settlement boundaries appropriately to enable for future appropriate windfall development to contribute to rural housing needs over the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 4875

Representation ID: 4862

SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

support

More details about Rep ID: 4862

Representation ID: 4835

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Revised settlement boundary is inappropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 4835

Representation ID: 4805

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

Yes if these are consistent with the historic context of the area and the natural boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 4805

Representation ID: 4771

SUPPORT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 4771

Representation ID: 4645

OBJECT LAWSHALL PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dorothy Griggs)

Summary:

The precise boundaries of all of the current Lawshall BUABs were considered in-depth during community consultation and with Babergh as part of preparing the Neighbourhood Plan which was 'made' on 24 October 2017. As such, there is no need for the amendments to the Lawshall - Street inset maps as proposed in the Local Plan consultation document.
The glossary of the Local Plan should identify that settlement boundaries and Built Up Area Boundaries, as identified in Neighbourhood Plans, have the same meaning

More details about Rep ID: 4645

Representation ID: 4572

SUPPORT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

Yes, the proposed settlement boundaries are considered to be appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 4572

Representation ID: 4465

OBJECT Neighbourhood Plan Team for Lawshall Parish Council (Mr Ric Edelman)

Summary:


We strongly urge Babergh to retain the current settlement boundaries for Lawshall described as Built Up Area Boundaries (BUABs) in the Lawshall NP. These 'shields' are crucial if Lawshall's character is to be maintained over the coming years. By embracing development in accordance with the Policies pertaining to these boundaries the countryside between our hamlets and housing clusters will be able to continue to provide the wildlife corridors that are essential to the health of the village's biodiversity havens of woodlands, village greens and private conservation areas around the parish (details in Lawshall Character Assessment and Hedgerow Survey).

More details about Rep ID: 4465

Representation ID: 4455

SUPPORT Mr J Rapley

Summary:

The proposed development boundary adjustments are not contentious.

But as the NPPF gives the planners the power to grant approval outside the published boundary then the community,Parish Council and District Councillors must, without exception, be consulted by the MSDC.

Otherwise there will be a loss of confidence in the whole planning approval process.

More details about Rep ID: 4455

Representation ID: 4166

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

The proposed settlement boundary in the area of Springvale Farm, The Beagle Public House and to the north of Poplar farm Cottages if allowed will result in the coalescence of Ipswich and Sproughton. This area is particularly attractive from a visual perspective and should not be developed.


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.

More details about Rep ID: 4166

Representation ID: 4075

OBJECT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate, the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 4075

Representation ID: 4033

COMMENT West Suffolk (Mrs Amy Wright)

Summary:

The provision of new committed boundaries around settlements as small as 10 dwellings, creates the potential for greater growth in the countryside. This approach should be suitably assessed through sustainability appraisal.

More details about Rep ID: 4033

Representation ID: 3866

OBJECT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

* Whereas some factors considered are appropriate, the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 3866

Representation ID: 3726

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Whereas some factors considered are appropriate, new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites not yet delivered. 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.

Settlement boundaries should not be revised to coincide with any new roads built. Every road then becomes a new infill development opportunity. The cumulative stimulated additional demand equals longer and more unreliable journey times, the exact opposite of the advertised "benefits".

More details about Rep ID: 3726

Representation ID: 3578

OBJECT The Executors of DH Mager represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

In Hoxne, the settlement boundary should be amended to include SS0043/SS0044/SS0045. The Council has flexibility in deciding which land is most appropriate for development. Sites mentioned above should be identified as suitable sites for allocation with the Local Plan. The settlement boundary should also be appropriately amended.

More details about Rep ID: 3578

Representation ID: 3558

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

We recognise that the settlement boundaries identified in the 1998 Local Plan are outdated&also accept that gradual growth of their community is necessary however we're fundamentally opposed to growth that significantly exceeds the planned expansion identified in the alternatives within the chapter 'Spatial Distribution'. It is also alarmed at the inability adhere to the intended aim of development 70/30 toward urban areas, rather than the actual 60/40 split towards rural areas. The call for sites which has identified many areas of land considered satisfactory for development but sit outside the proposed settlement boundaries is a cause of genuine concern.

More details about Rep ID: 3558

Representation ID: 3517

OBJECT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

No, the settlement boundaries are not appropriate. 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.

More details about Rep ID: 3517

Representation ID: 3143

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Webb

Summary:

Planning permission already granted and not yet put into any building is first priority, rather than proposing new boundaries allowing more than necessary growth and therefore loss of greenfield sites

More details about Rep ID: 3143

Representation ID: 3007

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

The proposed settlement boundary in the area of Springvale Farm, The Beagle Public House and to the north of Poplar farm Cottages if allowed will result in the coalescence of Ipswich and Sproughton. This area is particularly attractive from a visual perspective and should not be developed.

More details about Rep ID: 3007

Representation ID: 2995

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

Summary:

The DDNPSG leaves commenting on these to the individual Parishes affected at this stage but reserves its position to comment in future as work on the DDNP progresses in parallel.

More details about Rep ID: 2995

Representation ID: 2768

OBJECT Braiseworth Hall Farms Limited represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

The approach to the new settlement boundaries to provide flexibility for new development in rural areas in line with national policy and guidance is welcomed. It is important to have settlement boundaries and not solely rely on the restrictive approach of sites only coming forward through new allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 2768

Representation ID: 2705

OBJECT Mr M Ribbons represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

In Wetheringsett, the settlement boundary should be amended to SS0570 owned by our client identified within this submission (or part of the site as deemed appropriate by the Council). The Council has flexibility in deciding which land is most appropriate for development.

More details about Rep ID: 2705

Representation ID: 2111

COMMENT Mr & Mrs M Baker represented by Boyer Planning (Paige Harris)

Summary:

We would support Option BND1. We recognise the need for settlement boundaries within the Districts and the role in which they play. We would however wish to state that these settlement boundaries should be flexible and should include sites that have been proposed for development through 'Call for Sites' exercises.

We believe that sites which are located adjacent to the settlement boundaries should also be considered for development. Sites adjacent to existing boundaries, often benefit from access to all of the same services and facilities that sites within the settlement boundary benefit from. These sites are equally sustainable. Such sites should therefore be considered for development and supporting text of the Joint Local Plan should support this appropriately.

More details about Rep ID: 2111

Representation ID: 1489

OBJECT Hugh Pulham Farms Ltd (Mr Anthony C Pulham (Stoke Ash and Thwaite Councillor))

Summary:

Stoke Ash and Thwaite Parish Council
Stoke Ash SS 0746 SS 0723 we believe that these should be recommended for development subject to the Parish Council approval
Thwaite SS0786 SS 0760 SS 0780 as per plan supplied by councilor Leggett 3266

More details about Rep ID: 1489

Representation ID: 1306

COMMENT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

If a hamlet boundary based approach were adopted, it would be helpful to ensure that the base plan is up to date. Rowan Cottage is not as shown on the OS extract used for consultation. There may also be other anomolies.

More details about Rep ID: 1306

Representation ID: 1305

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I do not consider it necessary to have a settlement boundary in Long Thurlow, a hamlet of less than 70 homes. The current policies seem to be working adequately in guiding development on infill sites. I would support the drafting of a criteria based policy for hamlets 10+ instead of a designated boundary. It is too prescriptive as a replacement to the current Open Countryside policy. Therefore, I do not support Option BND1 .

More details about Rep ID: 1305

Representation ID: 925

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

This section could only be accepted, subject to clarification that: sites outside the Settlement Boundary will require environmental surveying to a gold standard; and that: the plan admits certain known potential 'loopholes' need to be actively kept closed. We must state the Babergh Planning Committee does not respect its own local plan or the NPPF, it expediently rubber-stamps consultants' reports and shows no intention to take seriously pertinent comments of councillors or objectors (my notes of 25/10/17 meeting).

More details about Rep ID: 925

Representation ID: 338

OBJECT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

No, keep CS11 but limit number of houses to max of 15 in any one development.

More details about Rep ID: 338

Representation ID: 148

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

In essence yes but I have concerns about the methodology being largely desk-based. This will allow further anomalies if local communities are not required to give their advice to the process.

More details about Rep ID: 148

Representation ID: 92

SUPPORT J. E. Knock & Partners (Mr. Chris Knock)

Summary:

Yes, it is appropriate to move beyond the old settlement boundaries since in Battisford Tye the scale of infill within the old boundary has resulted in services becoming over-stretched since the provision was never designed for the present number of dwellings

More details about Rep ID: 92

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

Powered by OpusConsult