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) - Q78

Representation ID: 13021

OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary

More details about Rep ID: 13021

Representation ID: 12769

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

Summary:

The proposed site allocations at Washbrook are all located to the south of the existing settlement whereas land to the north of Washbrook is better related to the Ipswich Fringe, and has better connectivity to Ipswich, including close proximity to the London Road Park and Ride, to the east of the A14.

More details about Rep ID: 12769

Representation ID: 12116

OBJECT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Sufficient flexibility will be required within the suite of allocations to allow for changes in circumstances. Typically, Inspectors are seeking an additional 20% above the housing requirement over the plan period. It be necessary to consider the ability of Ipswich Borough to deliver its housing requirements. The most sustainable approach to meeting any unmet housing needs is likely to be the release of land adjacent to the administrative boundary of Ipswich within Suffolk Coastal District. This will ensure that the needs of Ipswich can be met nearby and that urban extensions can be established to enable growth to be brought forward in a sustainable manner.
Clear opportunities for growth exist to the East of Ipswich alongside the key transport corridors of the A14 and A12 at the proposed Bucklesham Heath Garden Village in Suffolk Coastal District.

More details about Rep ID: 12116

Representation ID: 11895

OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc, the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton. This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 11895

Representation ID: 11852

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 11852

Representation ID: 11741

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Within the document two SHELAA sites are attributed to Sudbury:
SS0590 - Land to the east of Waldingfield Road and North of Church Field Road,
Sudbury
SS0933* - Land to the east of Waldingfield Road and North of Church Field Road, Sudbury
This is incorrect. Both these sites are in the Parish of Chilton. The comments about mitigation fail to include Chilton Church, a grade I listed building or the historic park and gardens at Chilton Hall.
Generally, I consider that allocating all the land between Chilton airfield and the beginning of Great Waldingfield along the B1115 roadside is unsuitable, in particular, the allocation SS0948. What in effect will happen is that Great Waldingfield loses its distinctiveness and becomes in effect part of the Chilton Woods' development. This land should form part of the green buffer zone.
The B1115 is a narrow winding road. It has been subject to a number of road traffic accidents some causing fatalities. It is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles of which there are already a number traveling to and from Chilton Grain. Adequate road structures will need to be constructed within the airfield to cope with the increased traffic.
As to SS0590 and SS0933, as stated, both these sites are in the parish of Chilton. Site reference SS0590 indicates that the part of the site owned by the NHS which is currently allocated to C2 usage would be developed for residential use. Given the ageing population and the need for nursing and/or care homes, I consider the existing C2 use allocation should be maintained. I regard the suggested density of 40 houses as far too high.
Given the substantial excess of already allocated employment land being 83 hectares of which 20 is at Chilton Woods and the constraints of this site, if development is to be allowed on this site, which I submit should not occur, that only the part of the site fronting Church Field Road should be developed in accordance with BDC's heritage officer's report. The 7 description of employment use refers in SS05902 to B1 only, whereas on SS0933 the reference to the proposed land use description is B1/B2/B8. I consider B2 and B8 uses are incompatible with the nearby heritage assets and other residential properties.
However, careful consideration would need to be given to the adverse impacts of development and whether appropriate mitigation was possible with regard to nearby heritage
assets including Chilton Church (Grade I) listed building, Chilton Hall (Grade IT), the walled garden (Grade II) and the historic park and gardens. Any development on this site needs to protect and enhance the heritage assets. There are alternative employment sites allocated nearby.
There is an existing cycle way - footpath on the site which is in very poor repair and needs to be designated for public use.

More details about Rep ID: 11741

Representation ID: 11386

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. In principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc., the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton. This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 11386

Representation ID: 11103

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council considers that the sites which have been identified to be appropriate for allocation or inclusion within the settlement boundary, however, it is disappointed that there are no reserve sites in the town and recommends that the matter be addressed as soon as possible.

More details about Rep ID: 11103

Representation ID: 10966

OBJECT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc, the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton.
This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 10966

Representation ID: 10764

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* With respect to Sproughton, 8 sites have been identified in total (6 for housing and 2 for employment). These essentially cover most of the Chantry Vale (Wolsey Grange to the River Gipping), the old Sugar Beet site, and developments along the Loraine Way meeting up with Bramford.
* The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310 ,(This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it.

More details about Rep ID: 10764

Representation ID: 10701

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 10701

Representation ID: 10476

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. In principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc., the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 10476

Representation ID: 10452

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. In principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc., the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 10452

Representation ID: 10388

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Land east of Barking Road, Needham Market, should be considered for development as part of the future growth for Needham market. It is a ''sustainable, suitable and deliverable'' site, which would help this Market Town and the District plan for future development.

More details about Rep ID: 10388

Representation ID: 10162

COMMENT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

see full rep regarding sites

More details about Rep ID: 10162

Representation ID: 10091

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

We are keen to ensure that growth and development conserves and enhances the significance of the Districts' many heritage assets and theirs settings. At this stage the proposed site allocations do not have specific policies and no densities or quantum of development has been provided. Given this, it is not possible to determine whether or not the site allocations proposed are sound or unsound. For example, a number of large sites at Capel St Mary are proposed which would result in a substantial increase in the settlement's size which could be extremely harmful.

It is expected that all site allocations carried forward are done so having considered the impacts upon the historic environment and wider landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 10091

Representation ID: 10034

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. In principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc., the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 10034

Representation ID: 9675

OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh id designated for Sproughton. significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. Completely disproportionate, Sproughton would be absorbed by Ipswich.

A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 9675

Representation ID: 9586

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

To agree with "allocation" implies permission for development is a given. This does not take into account all the previously discussed points. Allocations should only be considered if the broadly comply with all the previous intended policies.

SS0180, SS0181, SS0182 potentially could accommodate a thousand homes - far too many , so to "allocate" them would imply permission granted without consideration of everything else to be considered. Keep the SHELAA separate from the Local Plan. Individual sites should then be considered in broad terms and only allocated if acceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 9586

Representation ID: 9399

COMMENT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

Currently there is one site identified (ref.SS0736). The site was previously a horticultural business and currently has reverted to a paddock and stable. (query change of use)
Access to the site, could be problematic given the restricted sightlines. There is a serious problem with speeding traffic notwithstanding the site being within the 30mph restricted speed zone.
This site is outside the proposed boundary and would not support large scale development. Any development here should not be a gateway to further development extending to the A14.
The Thurston Sixth Form Campus playing fields must remain as a valued open space.

More details about Rep ID: 9399

Representation ID: 9282

COMMENT Sport England (East) (Mr Philip Raiswell)

Summary:

Sport England would like to advise that we will object to any sites that are currently in use as playing field, or las used as such, unless exception E4 of our adopted playing fields policy is met, which states:

The playing field or playing fields, which would be lost as a result of the proposed development, would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of development.

This policy requirement is also in line with Para 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). If any playing fields are considered for allocation, Sport England would wish to see an identified replacement site which meets exception E4 criteria included within the local plan, to ensure that a deliverable replacement site exists.

More details about Rep ID: 9282

Representation ID: 9062

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Sproughton

More details about Rep ID: 9062

Representation ID: 8922

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

There is insufficient room for me to properly respond to this question, so I will do so by other means. This affects SS0098, SS0949, SS0091, SS0939, SS0129, SS0030

More details about Rep ID: 8922

Representation ID: 8914

COMMENT Mr Simon Pearce

Summary:

Both sites were deemed inadequate in 2016. They remain inadequate now. inadequately related to services and facilities. Located on greenfield, top-class land within a Conservation Area should not be accepted.

More details about Rep ID: 8914

Representation ID: 8763

OBJECT Tom Blake

Summary:

A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc, the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton. A significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 8763

Representation ID: 8637

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

No. In view of the fact that the JLP does not contain information as to proposed selection criteria, it is possible that the sites identified in Sproughton could become part of the adopted JLP. This will amount to a huge over development of Sproughton community which is rural in nature and will be detrimental to the community. The sites identified are all in open countryside, with very tenuous links to adjacent urbanised areas.

More details about Rep ID: 8637

Representation ID: 8368

SUPPORT Ms Lesley Paris

Summary:

For Norton, the sites identified for development within the boundary are acceptable. Other sites outside the boundary are not acceptable as they area too far from the core of the village to be part of the community.

More details about Rep ID: 8368

Representation ID: 8068

COMMENT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

SPS does not have available resources to examine and comment on the 750+ sites listed and mapped. Therefore we reserve the opportunity to comment in more detail on the shortlisted sites at a later plan stage. That said, all sites should be assessed in accordance with their landscape and heritage impact, together with their sustainability and proportionality to the host settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 8068

Representation ID: 8061

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

No - the sites identified aren't appropriate. Planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing/employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to, supporting the characteristic/ needs of existing communities. 9,446 dwellings are proposed. Once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account applications granted/in progress, the OAN is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings 55.11% of the total proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton - HUGE over-development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - an increase of 397% i.e. not 'creeping coalesence' but 'complete digestion'.

More details about Rep ID: 8061

Representation ID: 7908

OBJECT John Tuppen

Summary:

Many sites around Claydon and Barham would have high impact on existing footpaths, open spaces and wildlife corridors. Existing infrastructure is at capacity or exceeded. Developing all sites would double the size of the community, a re-designation of existing service spaces would be required. A proposed Northern route terminates at Claydon and would have a significant local impact. For all of the above it is essential that the area be planned as whole and the existing "developer lead commercial initiatives" be recognised for what they are. We need a proper thought out plan for the area not piecemeal development.

More details about Rep ID: 7908

Representation ID: 7890

COMMENT Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd (Miss Natalie Harris)

Summary:

Residential led scheme within Elmswell settlement applicable to local plan reference SS0039.

Please see supporting letter prepared by Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd dated 9th November 2017.

More details about Rep ID: 7890

Representation ID: 7872

COMMENT Green Light Trust (Mr Ashley Seaborne)

Summary:

Site SS0237 is not supported by GLT. This site is for 15 dwellings on the field next to GLT's headquarters The Foundry. Lawshall NP identifies this field as a settlement gap and it is fronted by a protected ancient hedgerow. Furthermore the site is very close to Golden Wood one of the village's main wildlife and biodiversity havens.

More details about Rep ID: 7872

Representation ID: 7816

COMMENT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

The three sites identified in the report were discussed a recent public meeting. Following considerable discussion, it was agreed by the meeting that the Woodlands Road site should be rejected and that the other two sites may be suitable with appropriate conditions attached.
Overall, there is concern about the road system in the centre of the village, the capacity of the drainage system, the surgery and the schools. There is also concern about the cumulative effect of development across the peninsula with particular pinch points such as Freston Crossroads

More details about Rep ID: 7816

Representation ID: 7700

OBJECT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

CPC find the level of inaccuracy and non classification as highlighted in its response to this aspect of the JLP consultation as unacceptable. In our view this renders the JLP defective. We ask that these defects and failures be corrected as soon as possible and is not repeated as the JLP progresses through its consultation stages.

More details about Rep ID: 7700

Representation ID: 7634

OBJECT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. Further comments in respect of specific sites are set-out within the attached file

More details about Rep ID: 7634

Representation ID: 7576

OBJECT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. Further comments in respect of specific sites are set-out within the attached file.

More details about Rep ID: 7576

Representation ID: 7546

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

No. The planning policy should proportionally allocate housing and employment land across all the districts.Out of 9446 developments 2320 are designated for Sproughton. This is a significant over development which has 581 dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 7546

Representation ID: 7475

OBJECT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

A number of significant concerns, including highway safety, traffic, noise, overlooking, loss of provacy, overshadowing and loss of light.

More details about Rep ID: 7475

Representation ID: 7467

OBJECT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

There are significant issues with regard to loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of light, highway safety, traffic, noise, as well as general infrastructure issues for this site, and village in general. Planned, small scale housing might be appropraite, with significant mitigation to protect existing housing, but not large scale developments.

More details about Rep ID: 7467

Representation ID: 7434

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

There are no sites identified within Denham, Mid SUffolk

More details about Rep ID: 7434

Representation ID: 7423

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

Piggeries ( Great Waldingfield) is proposed to be settlement boundary, site is now occupied?

More details about Rep ID: 7423

Representation ID: 7341

OBJECT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

No proposed sites are suitable.
SS0948 and SS1029 are too close to the pending Chilton Woods development, crucial separation will be lost; SS0948 should be preserved and developed as a WW2 Heritage site.
SS0247 provides timeless views of the Conservation Area and Grade-1 listed church (see attachment - The Times 22Oct1935). Development here would be in contravention of the council's obligation to preserve and enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area.
Similarly development of SS0194 will damage the views of the Conservation Area
Developing SS0196 will cause further traffic problems around the school
*Any* more development will overload existing infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 7341

Representation ID: 7208

OBJECT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

All of the areas proposed are outside of settlement boundary - but given that planning permission has now been granted for SS0006; Ss0716; SS0019; SS0025 and SS0027 without any infrastructure development plan for Thurston - any new proposed sites must be connected to the village and must conform to Thurston's Neighbourhood Plan

More details about Rep ID: 7208

Representation ID: 7140

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

None identified in this area

More details about Rep ID: 7140

Representation ID: 6814

COMMENT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

A site has been identified in my village (Shimpling). The problem as I see it is there is no 'trade off'. The site has been brought forward by someone in accordance with your SHELAA arrangements. At the same time other individuals have made separate planning applications and these are now being processed. My point:-
It's a free for all out there and land being considered under SHELAA brings no protection just more development.

More details about Rep ID: 6814

Representation ID: 6777

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

N/A

More details about Rep ID: 6777

Representation ID: 6629

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q78 There is a need to map the proposed settlement boundaries, excluding parts of land bids not suitable for development. Sites previously refused permission during the lifetime of NPPF should not be included as potential allocations. A revised SHELAA is needed.

More details about Rep ID: 6629

Representation ID: 6225

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton. This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'.

More details about Rep ID: 6225

Representation ID: 5967

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Not applicable.

More details about Rep ID: 5967

Representation ID: 5745

COMMENT Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd (Miss Natalie Harris)

Summary:

Residential led scheme applicable to local plan reference SS0537.

Please see supporting letter prepared by Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd dated 8th November 2017

More details about Rep ID: 5745

Representation ID: 5735

COMMENT Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd (Miss Natalie Harris)

Summary:

Residential led scheme within Needham Market settlement applicable to local plan references SS1005 and SS0530.

Please see supporting letter prepared by Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd dated 8th November 2017.

More details about Rep ID: 5735

Representation ID: 5350

OBJECT Mr Jeremy Doncaster

Summary:

The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310.
This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes - this is more simplisitic as tweaking could be done where appropriate to JPL. This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising one parish in particular to the extent that it would be abosrobed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford. Site Ref: SS1024; SS1023; SS0191; SS0711;SS0299; SS0223.

More details about Rep ID: 5350

Representation ID: 5346

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Sproughton sacrificed by the planners to meet the needs of new housing, a duty to Co-operate yes, but not to this scale. A 400% increase in size is unacceptable and not so much creeping coalescence as "complete digestion"

Many of sites identified in Sproughton not suitable for development..

More details about Rep ID: 5346

Representation ID: 4997

OBJECT Mr Jeff Cribb

Summary:

SS1024 SS1023 Both effectively merge Ipswich with Sproughton. Massive impact on important green and open space of Chantry Vale/Gipping Valley, wide ranging biodiversity.
SS0711 SS0223 creeping coalescence towards Bramford.
The developments suggested for Sproughton could see increase of 400% in village size and see it effectively swallowed up by Ipswich. Schools, roads and health service are already strained.
This village should not be sacrificed to accommodate over 50% of Babergh's total development plan - this should be spread evenly throughout the district or a separate community established.

More details about Rep ID: 4997

Representation ID: 4877

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

Summary:

SS0736 is appropriate for both allocation and inclusion within the Beyton Settlement Boundary for the reasons set out within this detailed submission.

In summary, the site comprises a sustainable development that is well related to the built up area of the village and is suitable to accommodate a low-density housing development. The site is available for development now.

More details about Rep ID: 4877

Representation ID: 4309

OBJECT Christina Galvin

Summary:

SS0245 SS0295 SS0624 SS0918 SS0944 SS0945
- already overcongested with traffic (Copdock mentioned daily on traffic reports & village used as rat-run, report advising A12 overcapacity by 2021. From Washbrook only 1 route via Swan Hill into Ipswich, or via Sproughton to A14, already backed up from Hadleigh roundabout into village in rush hour or gridlock if A12/A14/bridge issue - worse if businesses too
- lack of amenities; local doctors already closed to new patients
- either next to narrow unpaved lanes, or dual carriageway - danger for pedestrians
- development size out of keeping with size/character of village

More details about Rep ID: 4309

Representation ID: 4073

OBJECT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. Planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the District. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed. The Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210 once applications and built dwellings are taken into account. It appears that 55.11% of Babergh's proposed development is in Sproughton which would be an increase of 397% in the parish size. Completely disproportionate and Sproughton would be absorbed by Ipswich like Kesgrave and Rushmere St Andrew. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 4073

Representation ID: 3944

OBJECT The Executors of the Estate of William Ship represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

SS0172/SS0831/SS0832 are appropriate for both allocation and inclusion within the settlement boundary for the detailed reasons set out within this submission:

The sites comprise land that is well related to the built up area of the village and is suitable to accommodate a low-density housing development without having any detrimental visual impact upon the countryside. The sites are sustainably located and available for development now.

The above sites should be the Council's preference for allocation in Henley above the other sites identified (SS0171) as it is the most suitable site for development as explained within this submission.

More details about Rep ID: 3944

Representation ID: 3918

OBJECT Caverswall Holdings Ltd/Highbridge Properties plc and West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust represented by CODE Development Planners Ltd (Ms Karen Beech)

Summary:

The draft SHELAA (August 2017) states that part of the site is suitable, available and achievable for residential use and that part is suitable, available and achievable for employment use. We consider that the whole site is suitable, available and achievable for residential use and while it is acknowledged that attention will need to be given to the adjacent Chilton Industrial Estate it is considered that the design process will be able to sensitively deal with the interface between the existing employment area and the new residential use.

More details about Rep ID: 3918

Representation ID: 3869

OBJECT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. Planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the District. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed. The Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210 once applications and built dwellings are taken into account. It appears that 55.11% of Babergh's proposed development is in Sproughton which would be an increase of 397% in the parish size. Completely disproportionate and Sproughton would be absorbed by Ipswich like Kesgrave and Rushmere St Andrew. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 3869

Representation ID: 3729

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Sites identified are inappropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. Planning policy should ensure proportional allocation of housing/employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. Appears that 55.11% of total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton. This is significant over targeting of development at Sproughton and would increase parish size by 397%. This is completely disproportionate and means Bramford joins Sproughton and Sproughton is absorbed by Ipswich. 'Complete digestion' rather than 'creeping coalescence'. Appropriate basis for development is pro-rated approach, with some tweaking for very small settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 3729

Representation ID: 3523

OBJECT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

On an aggregate basis, no - the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. Planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the District. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed. The Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210 once applications and built dwellings are taken into account. It appears that 55.11% of Babergh's proposed development is in Sproughton which would be an increase of 397% in the parish size. Completely disproportionate and Sproughton would be absorbed by Ipswich like Kesgrave and Rushmere St Andrew. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 3523

Representation ID: 3280

OBJECT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

I am unconvinced that the sites submitted to be considered for potential development and mapped in the 2016 and 2017 SHELAA have been properly assessed in accordance with the Councils own published Methodology , and upon which the settlement boundaries and potential sites are shown in Appendix 3 & 4.

Clarification of and background papers, including assessment results, were requested from the Council to understand the decisions made, however for whatever reason no information has yet been received from the Council.

Individual objection to several sites in Hadleigh have been submitted

More details about Rep ID: 3280

Representation ID: 3057

OBJECT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

SS0245 / SS0945

1) Dangerous crossing of Old London Road to school and existing village settlement
2) Has land made up from spoil from nearby Gladwell's site.
3) Too close to historic Copdock Hall and St. Peter's Church.
4) Prime agricultural land

SS0624 / SS0918

1) Prime agricultural land.
2) Provides a green lung to Copdock & Washbrook from A12
3) Would add to road congestion
4) Way out of village settlement boundary

More details about Rep ID: 3057

Representation ID: 3037

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

NO it is incomplete Wortham SS0032 is ok but other sites have been omitted

More details about Rep ID: 3037

Representation ID: 3002

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

Summary:

The DDNPSG reserves its position to comment in future as work on the DDNP progresses in parallel.

It draws specific attention to the options for sites for expanded primary school provision in Palgrave and necessity to ensure viability through construction of associated housing. Discussions are ongoing and involve the County Council, District Council, local MP and representatives of Palgrave school. Whilst the representatives of the school have expressed a particular preference it is generally accepted the increase in places is related to the growth options and also to the provision of Primary places at other schools within the DDNP Area.

More details about Rep ID: 3002

Representation ID: 2739

SUPPORT Wetherden Parish COuncil (Mrs Sonia Jewers)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 2739

Representation ID: 1976

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Not all. Of the two sites identified, that off Priory Road (SS0166) is the subject of an outline planning application for 9 dwellings (DC/17/03178) to which the Parish Council has objected. The site description states no previous history; an earlier application on part of the site for a single dwelling was refused on appeal (0352/08) and the grounds for the Inspector's decision remains very relevant.

More details about Rep ID: 1976

Representation ID: 1617

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

None of the sites on the north and east sides of Sudbury and Gt Cornard, (except the current Chilton Woods application),are appropriate to be included in the settlement boundary, as they all intrude into what is clearly countryside, of great scenic, wildlife and / or recreational value.

More details about Rep ID: 1617

Representation ID: 1616

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

See attachment

More details about Rep ID: 1616

Representation ID: 1539

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

The 13 acre field in SS0486 has been leased by Redgrave Amenities Trust for more than 20 years and provides the village with facilities not previously available:
Large Hall for village use
Sports pavilion
Children's play area
Sports pitches, parking, and open space.
This site provides facilities considered essential for all villages by district, county, government, Sport England and NHS (health) authorities. Its replacement for housing is against the guidance of NPPF 2012. There are adequate small infill sites for the one to two houses per year future need as identified in the 2017 Parish Council survey of housing needs.

More details about Rep ID: 1539

Representation ID: 1481

OBJECT Barton Willmore Planning P'ship (Mr. Paul Foster)

Summary:

We consider that site SS0121 is not an appropriate site for inclusion in the Local Plan as a residential allocation.

The development of this site would effectively lead to coalescence between Bramford and the village of Sproughton to the south. The majority of the southern section is also located within flood zone 3.

More details about Rep ID: 1481

Representation ID: 1476

OBJECT Mr Gavin Osbon

Summary:

SS0395 BENTLEY
Not appropriate for proposed 60 dwellings or anything like. Both approach roads inadequate for increased volume. Traffic flow between A12 & A137 into and through village and Bergholt Road traffic already causes concern. Increasingly dangerous Bergholt Road junction & road already contributory to planning refusals - amendment to junction would open that road up to who knows what. Would footway be provided to facilities in Capel St Mary? Proposal is not 'in line with existing settlement pattern' - nothing like it. It is alien to it. Proposal this size is saturation without regard for sustainability or environment.

More details about Rep ID: 1476

Representation ID: 1294

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

No.

More details about Rep ID: 1294

Representation ID: 1082

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

yes

More details about Rep ID: 1082

Representation ID: 697

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

This site is completely unsuitable for the proposed development as it would destroy village amenities land village life completely, it would

More details about Rep ID: 697

Representation ID: 415

COMMENT Adrian Bridge

Summary:

Norton Little Green is an isolated hamlet in open countryside with difficult access. It is clearly unsuitable for development. No sites should have been included, yet the following have been included:- SS 0001 0419 0420 0421 0759 0761

More details about Rep ID: 415

Representation ID: 341

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I think ward members should commit on own area.

More details about Rep ID: 341

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

Powered by OpusConsult