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) - Q79

Representation ID: 13225

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

Summary:

The proposed new site (Land off Swan Hill) submitted by La Ronde Wright on behalf of Building Partnerships Limited identifies 13.7 ha of land to the north of Washbrook and west of the A14 which is bounded on all sides by roads which define its extents. A residential led mixed use development in this location would enable the delivery much-needed housing in a sustainable location, capable of making a significant contribution to delivery in the Ipswich fringe. Flagship Housing Group a registered provider with a good track record of delivering high quality homes in the region has confirmed its interest in assisting in delivery in this location.

More details about Rep ID: 13225

Representation ID: 13136

COMMENT Mr & Mrs Barker Mrs Aitken represented by Savills (Mr William Lusty)

Summary:

Land North of the B1456, Chelmondiston

These representations highlight the availability of Land North of the B1456, Chelmondiston for housing development. The site totals 3.9 hectares in area and comprises of undeveloped greenfield land. We propose that an access to development of the site would be taken from the B1456.

Based upon comprehensive development of the site, we anticipate that up to around 100 dwellings could be brought forward and the site is being made available on this basis.

More details about Rep ID: 13136

Representation ID: 13022

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 13022

Representation ID: 12868

COMMENT Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (Ms Laura Townes)

Summary:

See site plan for Woolpit - Land south of Rag's Lane (Mid Suffolk).

More details about Rep ID: 12868

Representation ID: 12841

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

Summary:

Clients land at:
Park Farm Barns, land east of Vicarage Lane, Wherstead.
Land west of Vicarage Lane, Park Farm, Wherstead

More details about Rep ID: 12841

Representation ID: 12815

COMMENT Button Farms Ltd represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

land east of London Lane, Stowmarket.

Proposed for commercial/employment purposes, i.e. Use Class B1a (offices), B1b (Research and Development) B1c (Light Industry), B2 (General Industrial), B8 (Storage and Distribution), C1 (Hotel) and/or Sui Generis employment generating uses such as a Petrol Filling Station.

More details about Rep ID: 12815

Representation ID: 12770

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

Summary:

The proposed new site (Land off Swan Hill) submitted by La Ronde Wright on behalf of Building Partnerships Limited identifies 13.7 ha of land to the north of Washbrook and west of the A14 which is bounded on all sides by roads which define its extents

More details about Rep ID: 12770

Representation ID: 12562

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

Summary:

Our clients control additional land to the east of Botesdale which is considered to be suitable for future development during the course of the plan (which extends to 2036) for the Councils consideration of how it could contribute towards the Plan strategy.
We consider that the site could accommodate a range of uses subject to local needs and requirements, and it is worthwhile considering this additional area in light of the potential
benefits that could be brought. Indeed, our clients are intending to liaise with local stakeholders
in coming months in this regard we consider that it could accommodate housing (private and affordable), recreation / open space, small scale employment and other services.

More details about Rep ID: 12562

Representation ID: 12553

COMMENT Mr David James Bullard represented by Whymark and Moulton Ltd (Mr Barry Whymark)

Summary:

see attached rep for SS1019 - identified as "currently not developable"

More details about Rep ID: 12553

Representation ID: 12547

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

Summary:

Our clients control additional land at Wortham which is considered to be suitable for future development during the course of the plan for the Councils consideration of how it could contribute
towards the Plan strategy. It is expected that it would provide low density dwellings in keeping with existing properties.

More details about Rep ID: 12547

Representation ID: 12520

COMMENT The Royal Hospital School, Holbrook represented by Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd. (Mr. James Lawson)

Summary:

The Royal Hospital School established by Royal Charter at the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich, London in 1712, occupies a site extending to 81ha laid out as an attractive masterplanned campus of buildings in 1928-33 to a design by Buckland & Haywood Architects overlooking the Stour Estuary. The School's unique architectural and aesthetic heritage is recognised by Grade 2* and Grade 2 listed buildings, and the formal layout of its buildings and grounds which reinforce its naval history and traditions.
The acting agent is proposing that the site is subject of a 'Site Specific Policy Recognition' and has submitted proposed policy wording. The aim of the proposed policy is to acknowledge that the School is a nationally renowned educational institution which needs to be able to invest in and modernise its academic, sport and accommodation facilities, in order to remain competitive and financially viable. The proposed policy would ensure that BMSDC would take a positive, proactive and collaborative approach to the School's proposals for refurbishment and development, identified in a site wide masterplan, and seek to ensure that the school can maintain its position as a leading academic institution and key employer, having due regard to the need to conserve, and where practical enhance, its architectural and heritage significance and interest.

More details about Rep ID: 12520

Representation ID: 12443

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 12443

Representation ID: 12438

COMMENT Ms C Ciechomski represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr. James Firth)

Summary:

The site at Barking Road (Land at Barking Road, Needham Market) has not yet been assessed in the Council's plan-making process. The site was previously submitted as part of the Joint Local Plan Call for Sites 2015, however the site was not given a reference number by the Council nor was it included in the analysis of submitted sites. It is understood that this was due to previous, outstanding queries from the Council regarding site access. As outlined in this representation, access to the site can be achieved and the site should be included within the plan-making process and assessed as a potential development location. In light of this, a call for sites submission form accompanies this representation. (See full representation attached in support of the site.)

More details about Rep ID: 12438

Representation ID: 12374

COMMENT Strutt & Parker Farm Ltd. represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)

Summary:

Hill Farm is located to the east of Brent Eleigh, accessed via an access drive from the A1141 running north east out of the village towards Lavenham. At present, the site is accessed primarily from the north, albeit there are potential access opportunities from the South adjoining Cock Lane. This secondary access lie within the ownership of Strutt & Parker Farms Ltd. The accompanying Site Location Plan demonstrates both potential accesses. The necessity of the site for agricultural purposes has reduced and a number of business have successfully established on the site. There is an element of residential use and a number of buildings are currently redundant. The existing businesses are well-used by the local community. The majority of employees are also locally based. We propose the allocation of the employment site within the emerging JLP to recognise its existing value to the local area and District. See full representation attached.

More details about Rep ID: 12374

Representation ID: 12372

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

Summary:

We consider that the land south of Stowmarket Road, Stowupland should be considered for development as part of the future growth for Stowupland.

More details about Rep ID: 12372

Representation ID: 12292

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

Summary:

As outlined throughout this letter, we believe that my client's site, Land east of Ixworth Road, Norton would be appropriate for allocation within the new Babergh and Mid Suffolk Local Plan. A site submission form has been included as part of this submission alongside a location plan showing outlining the site in red.

More details about Rep ID: 12292

Representation ID: 12278

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

Summary:

Submission draws together three sites:
Planning ref: B/15/014533 - subject to S106 agreement
SS0454 and SS0277.

The combined site would contribute some 235 homes towards the increasing need for housing to be accommodated in the Joint Local Plan. Babergh is in the top level of Core Villages. The development of the site would therefore be sustainable and an essential addition to much needed housing provision.

More details about Rep ID: 12278

Representation ID: 12240

COMMENT Wincer Kievenaar LLP (Mr Philip Branton)

Summary:

Land East of Duke Street, Hintlesham

I write in reference to the above site, which has been submitted during the current Joint Local Plan Consultation (Aug 2017), as a Potential Residential Development site, ref: HINT - 06 (email confirmation received from BMSDC Local Plan 07.11.2017 at 14.59)
I can confirm that Wincer Kievenaar Architects have been appointed by the land owner as Planning agents, and there is a current planning application pending ref: DC/17/03982, Outline Planning Application (Access to be considered) - Erection of up to 11 Dwellings including 3 Affordable Houses.

More details about Rep ID: 12240

Representation ID: 12232

COMMENT Marden Homes represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)

Summary:

We have previously submitted representations to the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan consultations on behalf of Marden Homes Ltd. for land east of Bears Lane, Lavenham (SS0217). We note that the 2017 SHEELA report has concluded that "the site is potentially considered suitable for residential development, taking identified constraints in consideration. However only part development (western aspect of site) is recommended in order to avoid disproportionate development to the existing settlement."
A full planning application to provide 24 homes along with landscaping and open space was submitted to Babergh District Council in August 2017. We have worked closely with the Parish Council and Babergh District Council during the planning application process and the proposals are consistent with the adopted neighbourhood plan. See full representation attached with site plan.

More details about Rep ID: 12232

Representation ID: 12209

COMMENT Pigeon Investmenrt Management (Mr. Andrew Fillmore) represented by Beacon Planning Ltd (Ms Sophie Pain)

Summary:

Garage Field, Land to west of the A137, Wherstead WHE02 (SHLAA May 2016) Site submitted into the call for sites process together with these representations
November 2017 expansion of this existing business.
Mixed use employment comprising a Motorway Service Station and associated uses,
and B1, B2 and B8 employment. Proposals include a Petrol Filling Station with
associated ancillary retail and food and drink (A3) outlets to the front of the
site with access provided via an upgraded roundabout at the junction of the
A137 and eastbound A14 slipway. Mixed use employment uses
(B1, B2 and B8) to the rear.

More details about Rep ID: 12209

Representation ID: 12207

COMMENT Pigeon Investmenrt Management (Mr. Andrew Fillmore) represented by Beacon Planning Ltd (Ms Sophie Pain)

Summary:

Klondyke Field and associated woodland, west of Bourne Hill, Wherstead WHE02 (SHLAA May 2016) Submitted into the call for sites process August 2016 Up to 90 new homes including bungalows and public woodland extending to circa 3.5ha.

More details about Rep ID: 12207

Representation ID: 11968

COMMENT The Trustees of the Tollemache 1965 Settlement represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

Land at the Street, Framsden, represents a sustainable and deliverable site to accommodate a modest number of additional homes, ensuring a proportionate extension to the village, and should be included as an allocation in the JLP or residential development.

The site measures approximately 0.83 hectares and is a greenfield site sandwiched between existing residential development to the west and east. To the south is The Street, from which access is envisaged.

More details about Rep ID: 11968

Representation ID: 11943

COMMENT The Trustees of the Tollemache 1965 Settlement represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

Land at The Street, Framsden represents a sustainable and deliverable site to accommodate a modest number of additional homes, ensuring a proportionate extension to the village, and should be included as an allocation in the JLP or residential development.

0.83 hectare site. Not subject to any physical constraints that would prohibit its development for housing. Development would have nominal impact on the landscape, given that it is sandwiched between existing residential developments. Flood Zone 1.

In overview, it is a requirement of national policy that the JLP seeks to support thriving rural communities, such as Framsden.

More details about Rep ID: 11943

Representation ID: 11929

COMMENT Amber REI represented by Pegasus Group (Mr David Onions)

Summary:

Existing poultry processing factory in Eye, off Magdalen Street. Site is predominantly within the development boundary, and settlement is at the top of the current and proposed settlement hierarchy. Site benefits from planning permission to provide a new car park on land to the west of the existing building.

Redevelopment would:
Remove potential amenity issues to nearby residential accommodation (traffic, noise, odour and visual impact)
Redevelop previously developed land in a highly sustainable location
* Contribute towards meeting the Council's housing requirement in a location compatible with its strategy for housing delivery.
* Supporting existing facilities within Eye including the Hartismere school, shops and other facilities.
* Contributing via CIL and potentially other contributions towards infrastructure.
* Avoiding the long term sterilisation of a site unlikely to be capable of delivering the type of new employment the District actually requires.

More details about Rep ID: 11929

Representation ID: 11924

COMMENT Amber REI represented by Pegasus Group (Mr David Onions)

Summary:

Haughley Park poultry processing factory should be identified as suitable for residential development. Site has very significant potential benefits associated with it. Adjacent building is one of the few Grade I listed buildings within the District. The factory affects the immediate setting of the building and parkland environment. Benefits of removing are:
Removal of unattractive nature of the factory, harming a number of listed buildings and the wider visual amenity of the area.
Removal of HGV traffic
Locational benefits associated with the site which would contribute towards supporting existing facilities in a number of identified clusters including those in Stowmarket, Elmswell and Woolpit.
Without a residential-led redevelopment it is unlikely for the site to be either redeveloped or re-occupied.
Would benefit existing business (wedding venue) and occupier of the Hall by removing the factory

More details about Rep ID: 11924

Representation ID: 11736

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

Summary:

It is considered that sites SS0773 and SS0566 should be considered alongside the wider site at Haughley Park, set out in more detail below.

We consider that land at Haughley Park, should be considered for development as part of the future growth for both meeting residential need and economic provision. In addition to this the development would enable significant enhancement to the significance of listed buildings and their settings.

As set out in Section 3 of this document, this site is in a sustainable location with good access to a number of services and facilities, therefore development in this location should be supported in principle.

More details about Rep ID: 11736

Representation ID: 11309

COMMENT Wetherden Town Lands Charity (Mr Alex Jarrett)

Summary:

Call for Sites form being submitted re land in Upper Town Wetherden

More details about Rep ID: 11309

Representation ID: 11234

COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

We suggest that an alternative site for allocation would be that of the former Taylor's Garage at the southern end of the village, which we have advocated for some time as the next sequentially preferable site for housing development in Bildeston.

More details about Rep ID: 11234

Representation ID: 11188

COMMENT Mr S Ruffell represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr Michael Ward)

Summary:

The land at Peppers Hall, Cockfield has not yet been appraised as part of the Council's plan-making process. The site is however suitable, available and achievable in the short term for a small level of residential development.

Scheme shows a frontage development adjacent to the A1141 that would appear as a natural extension to the proposed settlement boundary.

More details about Rep ID: 11188

Representation ID: 11109

COMMENT Catesby Estates Limited represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Jen Carroll)

Summary:

Site as illustrated on site location plan, does not currently form a proposed allocation in the emerging joint local plan. Land north of Waldingfield Road subject to currently outline application forms part of the Chilton Woods allocations in the Core Strategy and Local Plan. As such the site was not put forward for the call for sites in April 2017. As a result it has not been assessed to establish the realistic assumptions about availability, suitability and viability.

Given the site forms part of the strategic allocation, the principle of development in this location has therefore been considered acceptable, and as such the site should be included for development. Exclusion from the local plan would be unjustified and would render the local plan ineffective.

More details about Rep ID: 11109

Representation ID: 10873

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

The Parish Council's preferred option for new development remains with the site at Old Engine Meadow (adjacent to the Mendlesham Health Centre), which could provide an additional 28 dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 10873

Representation ID: 10858

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 10858

Representation ID: 10766

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

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, 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 in 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. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rata approach.

More details about Rep ID: 10766

Representation ID: 10623

OBJECT Harrow Estates (Miss Cindy Wan)

Summary:

As mentioned previously, it would be helpful for further clarity to be provided on the scale of development proposed to be allocated to each settlement. This could then inform discussions on the most appropriate sites to accommodate this scale of development.

More details about Rep ID: 10623

Representation ID: 10573

COMMENT Hopkins Homes Ltd represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

Our Client's site at Days Road, Capel St Mary, should be included within the settlement boundary for the village following recent consent for 97no dwellings (Applicaton Reference B/17/00122).

More details about Rep ID: 10573

Representation ID: 10480

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* I also feel that the determination of settlement on the basis purely of numbers is over-simplistic. The setting and historical purpose of any collection of houses is important; for example, a collection of farm workers cottages located in the countryside should not necessarily establish a basis for a larger settlement. The existence of 'community' is also important.

More details about Rep ID: 10480

Representation ID: 10396

COMMENT Delphi Diesel Systems represented by Colliers International (Mr Leigh Thomas)

Summary:

Delphi Site Sudbury is one of the largest pieces of brownfield land in single ownership within the urban area of Sudbury. it presents an excellent opportunity to deliver a number of significant benefits for the local community if continued industrial use is not feasible. At this stage, feasibility studies have not been undertaken in order to identify the most suitable alternative use for the site, albeit it is acknowledged that the Council have identified the delivery of housing as one of the key challenges for the District.

Delphi request that the site is identified as a potential development site in the emerging Local Plan, and that sufficient flexibility is provided in the wording of the allocation to allow a redevelopment scheme to be delivered in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 10396

Representation ID: 10362

COMMENT E. R. Ling & Sons Ltd. (Mr. J Ling) represented by NPS Property Consultants (Mr Richard Smith)

Summary:

We are seeking to amend site submission SS0734 to include land for a new school as supported be the Chair of Governors for Palgrave Academy Primary School. Please see attached full representation and illustrative site layout plan. The proposed site is considered suitable for development as it is in a sustainable location to the west of Palgrave where there are no environmental or flood risk designations, the land is screened by a mature tree belt and the site can achieve an appropriate access with good connectivity to the village. The proposal would help deliver a new/expanded school to meet educational needs and housing which will help finance the construction of the school. The size and scale of development could be successfully assimilated within the village.

More details about Rep ID: 10362

Representation ID: 9958

OBJECT HHF (EA) Limited (Mel Walton)

Summary:

Site to the north-west of Needham Market together with windfall sites within the physical limits of the town, can accommodate Needham Market's housing needs, including its affordable housing needs, for the duration of the new Local Plan period. It is in a sustainable location and relates well to the established pattern of development that the town enjoys.

More details about Rep ID: 9958

Representation ID: 9803

COMMENT Jan Jessup

Summary:

* There is an area of land adjacent to Blackmore Barn that would be ideal for a small number of new houses and this would not have the same impact on other residents or wildlife. Access to this land would not be a problem, whereas access to the land behind the existing houses would have an impact on them, not only visually but from a noise perspective too. Holbrook is an unspoilt peninsular village with limited amenities and would not be able to facilitate mega housing development. If the new development goes ahead it will undoubtedly spoil the uniqueness and tranquillity of this beautiful area.

More details about Rep ID: 9803

Representation ID: 9801

COMMENT W Jessup

Summary:

Following on from the Admirals Quarter development, further developments of the size proposed will materially alter the character of Holbrook. That is not to say that small developments should not be considered. The small site adjacent to Blackmore Barn which would be the access to the Ipswich Road development could be used to site 5 to 10 bungalows or 11/2 storey houses without altering the character of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 9801

Representation ID: 9776

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Brownfield sites need to be explored, eg run down industrial sites, disused airfields etc. A more inventive approach needs to be sought to avoid spoiling the culture and uniqueness of town and villages within Mid Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 9776

Representation ID: 9587

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

The provision of large numbers of sites takes no account of out of District residency, up to date ONS growth figures and migration without employment. The process is illogical and flawed and has the potential to create major problems for existing residents.

More details about Rep ID: 9587

Representation ID: 9401

COMMENT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

None identified or supported by the Parish Council.

More details about Rep ID: 9401

Representation ID: 9332

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

Summary:

SS0097 should be extended to include the full extents of the land my client is promoting through the Joint Local Plan including land to the south of Castleton Way

More details about Rep ID: 9332

Representation ID: 9259

COMMENT Mr David Pittendrigh represented by Whymark & Moulton (Mr Whymark)

Summary:

LAND AT DUFFS HILL, GLEMSFORD. AVAILABLE LAND BORDERING
EXISTING VILLAGE BUILT UP AREA BOUNDARY WITH GOOD VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO GLEMSFORD WHICH IS
DEFINED AS A CORE BABERGH VILLAGE

AREA 1 - IS ADJACENT THE RECENT NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, EXTENSION OF CROWNFIELD ROAD AND HAS
PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE AND CHILDRENS PLAY AREA

AREA 2 - IS ADJACENT THE FORMER SILK FACTORY ON CHEQUERS LANE, ITSELF IDENTIFIED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF THE BUILT UP AREA BOUNDARY. VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM CHEQUERS
LANE IS NARROW AND THIS AREA WOULD PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTE TO THAT SITE.

THIS LAND IS ADDITIONAL SUITABLE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AVAILABLE LAND BORDERING
EXISTING VILLAGE BUILT UP AREA BOUNDARY WITH GOOD VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO GLEMSFORD WHICH IS
DEFINED AS A CORE BABERGH VILLAGE

More details about Rep ID: 9259

Representation ID: 9025

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The area between Belstead and Bentley and between the A12 and mainline railway as a new garden town location.

More details about Rep ID: 9025

Representation ID: 8906

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

There are 2 (non-SHELAA) offered sites under consideration as part of the Botesdale and Rickinghall Neighbourhood Plan process that are yet to be discussed by the NP steering group

More details about Rep ID: 8906

Representation ID: 8638

OBJECT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

No.

More details about Rep ID: 8638

Representation ID: 8585

COMMENT SHOTLEY PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dina Bedwell)

Summary:

We would like to suggest that the following sites are included in future consultations/deliberations:

- the field adjacent to Chapel Fields
- he land opposite the Primary School
- the eleven parcels of land identified during the affordable housing provision project (which resulted on the delivery of Chapel Fields)

More details about Rep ID: 8585

Representation ID: 8411

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

Summary:

There are other sites submitted for consideration in the Neighbourhood Plan which is under development, but these should probably not be considered for inclusion for allocation with the period of the proposed Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 8411

Representation ID: 8393

COMMENT Mr Iain Maxwell

Summary:

For Norton, no.

More details about Rep ID: 8393

Representation ID: 8280

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

No there are not.

More details about Rep ID: 8280

Representation ID: 8073

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

No other sites to be identified. If there were we would lose even more of our vital green space and wildlife corridors and Sproughton, Bramford and probably Burstall would be a sea of concrete and become suburbs of Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 8073

Representation ID: 7852

OBJECT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

In 2006 Local Plan there was a provision for a new cemetery behind St Mary's Church in Chilton. At that time it was possibly to be used for both Sudbury and Chilton residents. CPC were expecting this to still be allocated within the JLP. Is there any reason why it is not allocated?

More details about Rep ID: 7852

Representation ID: 7835

COMMENT Mr J Rapley

Summary:

Other than the site already identified in the previous question (Q78, SS0736) there are no sites within the existing or proposed village development boundary that might be developed.

Any future applications which might be submitted and which would fall outside the existing or proposed development boundary would be vigorously opposed by the community. This is because such a proposal would change the nature of this hinterland village and would further put strain on the local road network and services.
It is worth repeating that this village will be significantly affected by the proposed developments in neighbouring villages.

More details about Rep ID: 7835

Representation ID: 7794

COMMENT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

The council has not identified any other suitable sites within the village of Holbrook.

More details about Rep ID: 7794

Representation ID: 7635

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

None that I am aware of.

More details about Rep ID: 7635

Representation ID: 7579

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Not that I am aware. of.

More details about Rep ID: 7579

Representation ID: 7455

COMMENT Mr Richard Milne

Summary:

Site SS0408: Land west of Field View, The Street, Wickham Skeith, was submitted through the 2016 call for sites for the purpose of self build due to falling below the threshold required for market housing. It is however considered that smaller scale development such as this should be considered for inclusion within the Local Plan in order to boost the housing supply figures on deliverable sites for the Council to be in a position to meet the target required.

More details about Rep ID: 7455

Representation ID: 7358

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

Existing infrastructure is already at/above capacity. The school is full with little/no scope for further expansion, and with regular daily traffic problems in the vicinity. The sewage plant is operating at or above capacity, with frequent blockages being reported around the recent Cromwell Fields development

More details about Rep ID: 7358

Representation ID: 7212

OBJECT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Thurston feels that given the decisions taken at the MSDC Referrals Meeting of 1st November 2017 there should be no further growth in Thurston unless a fully funded Integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan is in place which covers safety issues at the railway station; road and pedestrian safety; health provision and linked footways and footpaths.

Those areas that have sustained such a substantial hit through the development planning process should be given a respite against allocating further sites for a period of time. Villages cannot sustain continual growth without the understanding as to where the infrastucture comes forward.

More details about Rep ID: 7212

Representation ID: 7144

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Not in this area

More details about Rep ID: 7144

Representation ID: 7122

COMMENT Mr David Marsh

Summary:

The local press reported that 90 hectares of land between Ipswich and Wherstead village has become available for residential and commercial use.

More details about Rep ID: 7122

Representation ID: 7038

COMMENT mrs elizabeth clarke

Summary:

Please refer to the Lawshall Neighbourhood Plan for recommendations of appropriate sites for the village

More details about Rep ID: 7038

Representation ID: 6899

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

North of Great Waldingfield the farm at Washmere Green on the B1115 appears ideally situated for a small retirement village but is not included on the Great Waldingfield map. It is part of Great Waldingfield Parish.

More details about Rep ID: 6899

Representation ID: 6631

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q79 Where is the brownfield land register which is required by The Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017

More details about Rep ID: 6631

Representation ID: 6210

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

A submission has been made using the online submission form together with all supporting information to allow consideration of a residential allocation for approximately 65 dwellings on land off Waldingfield Road, Great Waldingfield, for Endurance Estates Strategic Land Limited.

More details about Rep ID: 6210

Representation ID: 6197

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

No further sites at this time.
Exception sites may need to come forward to meet local proven need.

More details about Rep ID: 6197

Representation ID: 6133

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes no

More details about Rep ID: 6133

Representation ID: 6117

COMMENT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

Yes. The Taylors Garage site at the end of Bildeston High Street is relatively large, ticks all the boxes on access and would present a much more sustainable development proposal close to all local amenities and which would naturally integrate with the village.

Babergh already has notice of this site coming forward with an expected planning application. (Babergh Paper PL/17/10 letter from Strutt & Parker in relation to Planning ref B/15/01433 refers).

More details about Rep ID: 6117

Representation ID: 5969

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Not in Little Cornard.

More details about Rep ID: 5969

Representation ID: 5806

COMMENT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

The Neighbourhood Plan will consider for allocation the land owned by the Hamilton Trust between High Street and the Kentwell Estate.

More details about Rep ID: 5806

Representation ID: 5675

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 5675

Representation ID: 5349

COMMENT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

No other sites within the Parish of Sproughton

More details about Rep ID: 5349

Representation ID: 5087

COMMENT Mr Michael Wright

Summary:

Suffolk County Council site (Mackenzie Place, Lavenham Road, Cockfield) has been omitted from the draft Local Plan. This is due to provide 42 new homes and 9 self-build plots. Planning permission for this site has been submitted (DC/17/05332).

This omission was raised with Spatial Planning Officer at Babergh, who confirmed that the site is included within the SHELAA site status and the site will be added to the document as a potential development site. This site would contribute significantly to Babergh's housing land supply, it would be sufficient for the Plan period, without the need for other homes.

More details about Rep ID: 5087

Representation ID: 4993

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

The site adjacent to SS0628, to the south might also be suitable.

More details about Rep ID: 4993

Representation ID: 4868

COMMENT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

None other than those already identified on the Barking map
NB - The Map should be titled 'BARKING' AS THIS IS THE NAME OF THE PARISH
NB - Why are some very large sites (at least one of which is part in the parish of Barking) shown only on the Needham Market Map - Page 267?
This oversight MUST BE ADDRESSED with clear parish boundaries identified.

More details about Rep ID: 4868

Representation ID: 4840

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

No. There has already been a 12% increase in housing in the village in the last 5 years which exceeds the development guide proposed for hamlets and countryside in all proposals.

More details about Rep ID: 4840

Representation ID: 4839

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

The three redundant farm building/brownfield sites in Woolverstone: White House Farm, Home Farm, Dairy House are all good examples of sensible rural growth and will provide 12 new dwellings in the village without taking out prime agricultural land and spoiling rural vistas and the layout of the Woolverstone estate village. This is an increase of around 10% in housing terms and is sufficient expansion of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 4839

Representation ID: 4782

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Not at this time. Exception sites may need to be considered to meet proven local housing need.

More details about Rep ID: 4782

Representation ID: 3730

COMMENT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

No other sites within the Parish of Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 3730

Representation ID: 3580

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

Summary:

In Hoxne, SS0043/SS0044/SS0045 should be identified as suitable sites for allocation within the Local Plan. The settlement boundary should also be appropriately amended.

More details about Rep ID: 3580

Representation ID: 3565

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

No additional sites are considered appropriate in the village over which the Parish Council has jurisdiction, however as a general point it would be considered appropriate for each community to undertake a project leading to the publication of a Neighbourhood Development Plan to identify any such sites, both residential and business within their community.

More details about Rep ID: 3565

Representation ID: 3525

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

No other sites within the Parish of Sproughton

More details about Rep ID: 3525

Representation ID: 3360

COMMENT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

There is a density of population in The Tye that has weighted the population away from the centre of the village as there are two other areas that are also built up: the area around the Forge Triangle and the area around the Village Hall and the Church. Land adjacent to the area around the Hall and Church would be preferable for development as opposed to the area in front of the pub and would allow more people back into the centre of the village and return some focus in the village to the church and the village hall.

More details about Rep ID: 3360

Representation ID: 3226

COMMENT Offton and Willisham Parish Council (Mr Michael Bolton)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 3226

Representation ID: 3154

COMMENT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

Two sites are proposed.
SITE 1 - To be developed post 2026 the site comprises 17.42 hectares including 3 dwellings and riding stables. The site includes SS0867 and adjoins the south eastern boundary of site SS0303.
SITE 2 - The 18 hectares of land off north side of Coram Road, west of Castle Hill, south of Hadleigh Bypass and east of footpath/field ditch running north south from Coram Road and Hadleigh Bypass. The Council stated;- "The site is potentially considered suitable for residential development, taking identified constraints into consideration." There is no reason to dispute that conclusion by the Council

More details about Rep ID: 3154

Representation ID: 3131

SUPPORT Mr Shaun Ewing

Summary:

3 acre strip of land directly opposite Bacton Community Middle school which runs parallel along the road heading towards Wyverstone Village. It is separate from the farming land.

More details about Rep ID: 3131

Representation ID: 3004

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

Summary:

The DDNPSG will bring forward proposals for sites for housing and economic growth and connecting infrastructure but first require the local housing requirements to be provided by South Norfolk and Mid Suffolk LPAs for the whole of the NP Area.

More details about Rep ID: 3004

Representation ID: 2755

COMMENT Wetherden Parish COuncil (Mrs Sonia Jewers)

Summary:

Wetherden Parish Council surveyed all households to get a view on areas considered suitable for development and the amount and type of housing required to sustain growth commensurate to the size and amenities of the village.
The response was for mixed housing but the majority voted for Affordable Housing and Small Family Homes with development no larger than 10 units and identified 3 areas where they would like to see this happen. The Parish Council has reviewed the results and is in full agreement with the views of the villagers. Areas for Mid Suffolk to consider submitted.

More details about Rep ID: 2755

Representation ID: 2717

SUPPORT Mrs Jacqueline Heywood

Summary:

A half-acre piece of former garden to the Old Rectory, Freston, IP9 1AH, between the Old Rectory and the Village Hall, is not open countryside. It should should therefore be considered as potential building land. It is currently uncultivated and is covered in weeds, but with a sensitive development of one large or two smaller houses it would surely only work to enhance the area.

Freston is on two bus routes with easy access into Ipswich for employment, shopping and entertainment.

More details about Rep ID: 2717

Representation ID: 2690

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council - yes: Land North and South of the A1141 at its junction to the A134 at Loft Corner Cockfield (TL892560). This would support employment growth in an area close to existing industrial units. Development would be appropriate here due to main road access.

Land (TL899552) on the A1141 at Cockfield adjacent to Abbey Cottage, for road-front residential development.

The proposed development of land adjacent to Mackenzie Place, Cockfield on the A1141 is not included in the sites but it has been submitted for planning permission by Suffolk County Council - 42 dwellings and nine self-build plots.

More details about Rep ID: 2690

Representation ID: 2542

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Yes: Land North and South of the A1141 at it's junction to the A134 at Loft Corner Cockfield (TL892560). This would support employment growth in an area close to existing industrial units Development would be appropriate here due to main road access.

Land (TL899552) on the A1141 at Cockfield adjacent to Abbey Cottage, for road front residential development

It is noted that the proposed development of land adjacent to Mackenzie Place Cockfield on the A1141 is not included in the sites but it is understood to be submitted by Suffolk County Council.

More details about Rep ID: 2542

Representation ID: 2112

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

Summary:

SS0822
This is a sustainable site that benefits from excellent connectivity to both the village of Woolpit, as well as the A14. Should be suitable for residential, employment or mixed-use. Predominantly greenfield, but partly brownfield. Good access opportunities that could be utilised and there are various opportunities for landscaping, linkages and connections both to the village centre and the wider countryside. The site benefits from very close proximity to the services and facilities found in Woolpit. These include; a primary school; health centre; village hall; several employment areas; recreational facilities; foodstore; public houses; and restaurants. Further residential/employment would help secure the future of these services. Site is in close proximity to the A14, which encourages business development and access for residential development.

the proposed site is ideally located for sustainable residential and employment development that would greatly contribute towards helping to meet the needs of the District.

More details about Rep ID: 2112

Representation ID: 2103

COMMENT Mr A Herbert represented by Brooks Leney (Mrs Natalie Winspear)

Summary:

Site SS0540 should be included within the settlement development boundary for Haughley. The site is suitable for residential development in tandem with site SS0840, SS0841 and SS0270.

More details about Rep ID: 2103

Representation ID: 1977

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

The need for a site for a replacement school is noted. Diss and District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group will in due time bring forward proposals for sites for housing and economic growth but first require the housing requirements to be provided by South Norfolk and Mid Suffolk LPAs for the whole of the Neighbourhood Plan Area.

More details about Rep ID: 1977

Representation ID: 1618

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

The site at SS0187 / SS0925 between Valley Road & A134, should be re-considered, it could potentially be suitable for industry rather than minerals, given road improvements, and relieve traffic etc at Chilton Woods.

More details about Rep ID: 1618

Representation ID: 1615

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Application DC/17/04113. This site is deemed suitable for inclusion in the Haughley settlement boundary (as might be the parcel of land to the west of this site).

More details about Rep ID: 1615

Representation ID: 1541

SUPPORT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC is in the process of registering its own sites with the Land Registery,

Old School Playing Field



And considers these to be suited to the housing needs identified in its 2017 housing survey.

More details about Rep ID: 1541

Representation ID: 1483

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

Summary:

Object to rejection of site SS0478. We consider that SS0478 is a suitable site for residential development and should be allocated in the Local Plan because:

1. The site will adjoin the northern settlement boundary of Bramford, following the implementation of planning permission ref 2986/15.
2. Pre-application advice has confirmed that the site and the quantum of development is suitable in principle.
3. The allocation of this site will not lead to coalescence with the neighbouring settlement of Great Blakenham.

More details about Rep ID: 1483

Representation ID: 357

COMMENT Mr Rob Simpson

Summary:

Develop part of the former WW2 airfield at Alpheton (formerly Lavenham airfield)

Next to A134
Greater potential than Long Melford
Well screened
Reduces impacts and damage on Long Melford
Well drained not within a flood zone
Little environmental impact
Close to a small and underutilised industrial estate
Opportunities for affordable housing for local residents

More details about Rep ID: 357

Representation ID: 342

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I think we have enough, for this plan and two calls for sites.

More details about Rep ID: 342

Representation ID: 93

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

Summary:

Some of the buildings at Manor Farm TM045543 are now redundant and can be given new uses

More details about Rep ID: 93

Representation ID: 13

COMMENT Mr Denis Wicking

Summary:

I would like to add land at the front of my property to the list of land available for development. The address is Field Cottage, Straight Road, Battisford.
I would attach the site submission form, but you appear to have removed it from your site. I was not aware of this process before being told yesterday by a local parish councillor. I can be contacted on my email address.

More details about Rep ID: 13

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

Powered by OpusConsult