Home > Planning > Planning Policy

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

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

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

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Option HR1

Representation ID: 13262

OBJECT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

The data used to forecast growth is too historic as it makes no consideration for the effects of the Brexit vote, it is therefore unreliable and potentially over ambitious.

More details about Rep ID: 13262

Representation ID: 13134

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

Summary:

we support the Councils' proposed option to plan to meet its objectively assessed need of 9,951 dwellings within Mid Suffolk and 7,820 dwellings within Babergh.

More details about Rep ID: 13134

Representation ID: 13111

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Concerned that there is no alternative option put forward to meet any un-met need that may come forward from other authorities within the Housing Market Area. The Inspector's Report into the Ipswich Local Plan identified that Ipswich needs to work with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and therefore not sure why the current consultation document does not consider the possibility of any un-met need across the Housing Market Area.
In light of the recent government consultation on assessing housing need, it is noted that the government figures for Babergh and Mid Suffolk suggest a significant increase to that put forward as the OAN for the districts. It will be important for all authorities to consider the details of the "Right Homes, Right Places" consultation across the whole of the Housing Market Area.

More details about Rep ID: 13111

Representation ID: 12706

OBJECT Pegasus Group (Mr Stuart Wells)

Summary:

Object to the findings of the SHMA and the housing requirement as set out in Option HR1-OAN

More details about Rep ID: 12706

Representation ID: 12221

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

Summary:

We do not object to the principle of Option HR1, and the recognition that contingency sites should be included. However, we do not consider this option goes far enough to ensure a flexible approach to housing delivery and to ensure much needed homes are delivered.
To support flexibility in respect of meeting and exceeding objectively assessed housing needs, smaller scale sites should be supported to provide deliverable options over short timescales that will ensure that the recognised housing needs are met over the entire plan period. This is particularly the case where sites are taken forward consistent with Neighbourhood Plans such as the site at Bear's Lane, Lavenham.

More details about Rep ID: 12221

Representation ID: 12189

OBJECT The Greenwich Hospital represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr Paul Sutton)

Summary:

To be in accordance with future national policy, Option HR1 is unsuitable and should be revised.
Current planning guidance sets out a recommended method to identify the OAN for market and affordable housing within a defined HMA, using the latest national statistics for projected household formation as a starting point. This is then adjusted to take account of a range of issues, including employment growth and market signals. However, such a process leaves substantial room for interpretation. The Government has argued that a standardised approach to assessing local housing need would be simpler, quicker, and more transparent. This would also speed up preparation of Local Plans. The recent consultation, "Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places", recommends a standardised approach. As it is likely that this consultation will result in changes to national policy prior to the adoption of the Joint Local Plan, we suggest that the OAN figure is re-considered, and that it is revised to serve as the minimum number of homes to be delivered, rather than being viewed as a target.

More details about Rep ID: 12189

Representation ID: 11916

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

Summary:

For this reason, Pigeon object to Option HR1 within the consultation document and
would certainly suggest that there is evidence to demonstrate that options which include a higher housing requirement should be put forward. Pigeon would support an approach where the Districts explore options for higher numbers of dwellings and jobs above the OAN,particularly in light of the Government's emerging standardised methodology for calculating OAN.

More details about Rep ID: 11916

Representation ID: 11894

OBJECT Turley (Mr Gareth Barton)

Summary:

We do not agree with the approach proposed under Option HR1. The scenario fails to plan positively for future growth over the plan period. If this option is progressed, the Local Plan will restrict future growth across Babergh and Mid Suffolk, and the wider HMA. The approach fails to take account of the need to accommodate unmet need from the wider HMA, the requirement to deliver more affordable housing (to address existing shortfalls and meet future need), or to support future economic growth. The housing requirement presented in Option HRA1 should be reviewed and increased accordingly.

More details about Rep ID: 11894

Representation ID: 11402

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* The data used to forecast growth is too historic as it makes no consideration for the effects of the Brexit vote, it is therefore unreliable and potentially over ambitious.

More details about Rep ID: 11402

Representation ID: 11085

COMMENT Education and Skills Funding Agency (Mr Douglas McNab)

Summary:

The ESFA notes that substantial growth in housing stock is expected in the Babergh and Mid Suffolk districts; the consultation document confirms an objectively assessed need (OAN) for 7,820 homes in Babergh and 9,951 homes in Mid Suffolk over the plan period (2014-2036). If the housing target is set at the OAN level, this will place additional pressure on social infrastructure such as education facilities. The Local Plan will need to be 'positively prepared' to meet the objectively assessed development needs and infrastructure requirements.

More details about Rep ID: 11085

Representation ID: 10900

SUPPORT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

In the absence of further evidence Option HR1 is supported

More details about Rep ID: 10900

Representation ID: 10236

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

to ensure a consistent supply of housing is provided, we support the Councils' initial preference of Option HR1 to apply a contingency through a reserve sites approach.

More details about Rep ID: 10236

Representation ID: 10048

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* The data used to forecast growth is too historic as it makes no consideration for the effects of the Brexit vote, it is therefore unreliable and potentially over ambitious

More details about Rep ID: 10048

Representation ID: 9020

OBJECT Mr Michael Plowright

Summary:

I worry this could lead to developments going ahead in places, just because it is cheaper to fund there - Rather than considering sustainability of the proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 9020

Representation ID: 8998

SUPPORT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

this has to be the right way ahead. Its self evident and self explanatory. Reserve sites provide the flexible contingency fallback in any good/sound plan

More details about Rep ID: 8998

Representation ID: 8956

COMMENT Mr Guy McGregor

Summary:

I recognize the desirability of providing for local need and the natural increase in population but Quiet Enjoyment will be put at risk is at risk should the numbers proposed be introduced into this plan.

More details about Rep ID: 8956

Representation ID: 8729

OBJECT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

Summary:

Numbers for projected housing needs seem overstated and haven't been reviewed in light of brexit and migration. These figures also need to be distributed according to natural village growth and pro rata approach taken e.g. some villages attract more people than others and therefore it shouldn't be about what land has been offered up but about where additional housing/employment land is actually needed.

More details about Rep ID: 8729

Representation ID: 8678

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

[On behalf of Trinity College]
This is considered to be a robust approach to delivery that seeks to achieve the aims and objectives of the NPPF in boosting positively the supply of housing and delivering the necessary housing over the Plan Period. This is considered even more pertinent given the conclusions of the new standard methodology for calculating OAN which shows increases across BMSDC.

More details about Rep ID: 8678

Representation ID: 8495

SUPPORT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

we support this

More details about Rep ID: 8495

Representation ID: 7932

OBJECT Mrs Sarah Knibbs

Summary:

I do not think that applying a contingency is the best way to ensure housing supply.
I understand that sufficient planning applications have been approved to meet Babergh's 5-year requirement, but the developers have not commenced work.
I do not see how applying contingency would positively affect this position.

More details about Rep ID: 7932

Representation ID: 7827

COMMENT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

The village of Holbrook has a large housing development underway within its area and this must be taken into consideration before any future growth is permitted. It will see an additional 78 homes in the village which is believed to more than what the village should be expected to have built to meet future housing needs over the next 20 years. The Council's view is that no further similar development should be granted until similar growth in surrounding villages and time is allowed to evaluate the impact of the current development has on local services and infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 7827

Representation ID: 7813

OBJECT mr michael hammond

Summary:

Do not allow contingency . Allocate sites to meet housing need . In allocating sites there is a rigorous test to ensure deliver ability . Properly applied this will be sufficient without need for contingency , otherwise danger of overprovision and increased demand on already inadeguet infrastrture . Allocion of contingency sites could lead to land banking of original allocated sites , in order to allow development of contingency sites followed at a later date development of originally allocated sites

More details about Rep ID: 7813

Representation ID: 7777

COMMENT Mr John Foster

Summary:

A contingency will be required but the evidence base for the AON is flawed. While many new houses are needed it is important to understand the limitations of the Brett Associates report; limitations highlighted in the report.

More details about Rep ID: 7777

Representation ID: 7308

OBJECT Mrs Gillian West

Summary:

If the BDC/MidSuffolk have an accurate view of housing need & approvals in the pipeline, no contingency should be necessary. The issue is a lack of social housing, not a need for so-called "affordable homes" which simply become part of a buy-to-let landlord's portfolio & does not help those in most need. Too many volume builders holding approved sites in land banks awaiting upturn in market before building: approving further developments in less suitable locations rather than redundant/brownfield sites, is futile. Brexit could siginificantly reduce demand, given potential departure of nurses/medics, academics & agricultural workers from region.

More details about Rep ID: 7308

Representation ID: 7162

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

No contingency should be applied. The numbers of housing that BDC wish to build is significant and the requirement not proven I feel. Adding a contingency to the 2,320 proposed for Sproughton would simply concrete over everything from the centre of Ipswich, across Sproughton and through to Bramford and begin to encroach on Burstall.

More details about Rep ID: 7162

Representation ID: 7046

OBJECT Miss Leanna Cleaver

Summary:

I feel that this could lead to the approval of fragmented developments and poor planning.

More details about Rep ID: 7046

Representation ID: 6878

OBJECT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

There would be no need for a contingency plan if proper thought and planning is observed. If the already stuck sites were to be developed, that would prevent further sites from being stuck. Measures should be made to make developers build from existing permission granted.

More details about Rep ID: 6878

Representation ID: 6799

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Preferably Not.
But if it is:
The options for contingency could be addressed by a reserve site list which might be added to as new sites come forward.
But no contingency / reserve site should be approved without a housing need assessment to show there is still a need, and full local consultation / impact assessment undertaken to identify the most appropriate site.
Also, and most significantly, replacement of a failing or delayed site by a reserve site should not occur unless the failing site is permanently withdrawn from the JLP or moved to the contingency list.

More details about Rep ID: 6799

Representation ID: 6785

SUPPORT Hill (Lee Melin)

Summary:

The Government is currently consulting on a new standard methodology for calculation OAN. Under the current proposals, both Babergh and Mid-Suffolk would see increases in housing requirements. Provision should be made in the plan to accommodate any potential uplift during the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 6785

Representation ID: 6705

SUPPORT Hill (Lee Melin)

Summary:

The NPPF (para. 47) requires local planning authorities to boost significantly thr supply of housing. Para. 14 of the NPPF also requires that local plans should meet objectively assessed need with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid changes. The OAN is the starting point for calculating housing requirements but the requirements of paras. 14 and 47 should be addressed. Identifying a wide range of suitable sites that deliver a higher number of dwellings will boost supply and assisst with supply, particularly as delivery on larger strategic sites can be slow.

More details about Rep ID: 6705

Representation ID: 6677

SUPPORT david baldry

Summary:

I believe there should be no need for contingency. If there is a well thought out Local Plan we will have a sufficient supply. If additional dwellings are required they should be supplied by windfall sites up to 3 dwellings. The environment and existing dwellings should be deemed more important.

More details about Rep ID: 6677

Representation ID: 6612

SUPPORT Mr. Derrick Haley

Summary:

if we don't have a contingency we will box ourselves in for future devolpment

More details about Rep ID: 6612

Representation ID: 6333

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

See our full submission

More details about Rep ID: 6333

Representation ID: 6297

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

If there has to be a contingency it should be shared across the District not just along the A14 corridor

More details about Rep ID: 6297

Representation ID: 6273

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Freston is considered unsuitable for the development as it is classified as unsustainable but due to suitable land and irrigation crops such as potatoes, onions and carrots are produced.

BDC should also consider that it is important that rural areas continue to provide food

More details about Rep ID: 6273

Representation ID: 6271

COMMENT Neil Fuller

Summary:

New NPPF white paper imminent
* The latest consultation paper on the NPPF is proposing a cap of 40% above any LP created prior to their new proposals.
* Therefore it is entirely possible that the unrealistic housing needs proposals being proposed in our JLP could be increased by another 40% making an unrealistic growth plan impossible.

More details about Rep ID: 6271

Representation ID: 6147

SUPPORT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

As it cannot be guaranteed that all the adopted sites will be developed as envisaged it is very unlikely that the required housing numbers will be achieved purely from the initially adopted sites and small windfall sites. Consequently it is prefereable for the planning authority to identify the best reserve sites rather than leave it entirely to the market.

More details about Rep ID: 6147

Representation ID: 6026

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

Numbers seem overstated - no apparent account take of effects of BREXIT on domestic and overseas migration. Relocation of major industries, effects of 'Northern Powerhouse and HS2'. 10% uplift to increase supply/reduce sale price/increase affordability. Housing need based on projected 1.03 persons per dwelling (past average has been 2.3) therefore 7,820 is over-stated.

More details about Rep ID: 6026

Representation ID: 5752

OBJECT Miss Kim Brett

Summary:

Too much development in small areas, leading to a fragmented approach to development.

More details about Rep ID: 5752

Representation ID: 5534

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

Make provision for the anticipated housing requirement and no more. Focus on those sites that are most suitable without risking future approval of development on less suitable sites.

More details about Rep ID: 5534

Representation ID: 5450

COMMENT Wherstead Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Knibbs)

Summary:

Windfall sites should manage shortfall. Contingency is not required, and will contribute a fragmented approach to development

More details about Rep ID: 5450

Representation ID: 4929

OBJECT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Allows planning authority 'Carte Blanche' to pass wherever they arise also takes the pressure off to enforce planning applications already agreed.

More details about Rep ID: 4929

Representation ID: 4576

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 4576

Representation ID: 4573

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 4573

Representation ID: 4234

OBJECT Mrs Julie Gentry

Summary:

Too much quality agricultural land included. Capel St Mary will be destroyed as a village, too much development concentrated in a small area and probably will not be the type of low cost housing the area might need.

More details about Rep ID: 4234

Representation ID: 4128

COMMENT Mr Richard Hurdwell

Summary:

If there is to be a contingency then ensure the site leaves a contingency space in (only the largest) developments which could be considered if later required but for which there is no planning permission given or expectation that it would be given except after request from the planning authorities.

More details about Rep ID: 4128

Representation ID: 4109

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

Sites should be agreed in the plan and adhered to. Windfall sites should not be allowed and reserve sites should not be used

More details about Rep ID: 4109

Representation ID: 4059

OBJECT Mrs Barbara Thompson

Summary:

Liklihood if this option is agreed of many pieces of land being held for years with planning permissions whilst developers wait for the maximum return. Should only be granting on current need as the future needs are extremely unpredictable under the current climate. Any planning of need should be based on sustainability and adequate infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 4059

Representation ID: 3986

SUPPORT Sudbury Town Council (Mrs Jacqueline Howells)

Summary:

Support HD1 - apply a contingency

More details about Rep ID: 3986

Representation ID: 3826

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Sites should be agreed in the plan and adhered to.
Windfall sites should not be allowed and reserve sites should not be used.
Create the plan and stick to it, that is the only transparent and democratic approach.

More details about Rep ID: 3826

Representation ID: 3812

SUPPORT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

I agree that the Policy HR1 of setting the level of housing requirements at the objectively assessed need is reasonable. From a Beyton point of view I would like to ensure that the limited land area identified in this consultation document yields a positive contribution to starter homes and affordable housing. So whilst agreeing with HR1 I would like to think the Council needs to consider adopting a lower ratio of starter and affordable housing in villages such as Beyton to ensure developers build such houses when only small developments are being considered.

More details about Rep ID: 3812

Representation ID: 3746

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Numbers are well overstated - no account for the impact of Brexit on domestic and overseas migration

More details about Rep ID: 3746

Representation ID: 3738

SUPPORT Mr Jeremy Doncaster

Summary:

Replace 'Stuck' sites with others

More details about Rep ID: 3738

Representation ID: 3481

COMMENT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Current "stuck" sites with permissions and no building suggests need for contingency going forward-replace "stuck" sites with others.
Contingency sites to be replaced and not additional, original sites to be taken out of plan. Regular review of demand required checking the guiding principles of type, tenure, place and need (local ) should trigger need for reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 3481

Representation ID: 3457

OBJECT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

I don't agree with this, numbers are overstated-no apparent account taken of effects of BREXIT on domestic and overseas migration.
Relocation of major industries, effects of Northern Powerhouse and HS2.
10%uplift to increase supply / reduce sale price /increase affordability.
Housing need based on projected 1.03 persons per dwelling (past average has been 2.3) therefore 7820 is over-stated

More details about Rep ID: 3457

Representation ID: 3379

COMMENT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

Sites should be agreed in the plan and adhered to. Windfall sites should not be allowed and reserve sites should not be used. Create the plan and stick to it, that is the only transparent and democratic approach.

More details about Rep ID: 3379

Representation ID: 2922

SUPPORT Cllr Diana Kearsley

Summary:

The dedicated new 'garden village' approach as mentioned in last question

More details about Rep ID: 2922

Representation ID: 2904

SUPPORT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

Where did these figures come from ? Where is the evidence that these houses are required in this area?

More details about Rep ID: 2904

Representation ID: 2874

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

SUMMARY: yes to HD1 because we well know the recent history of Sudbury of extreme infill. It is better to allow for contingency now, than to lose the option later. Immediate steps should be taken to identify an employment area and a housing area. Both should be clear of the skyline.

More details about Rep ID: 2874

Representation ID: 2829

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support, all plans should have contingency as the plan might not work as expected

More details about Rep ID: 2829

Representation ID: 2810

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

1. 7820 population growth unrealistic in light of massive reduction of immigration due to BREXIT In 2016 pre BREXIT the immigration growth was predicted to be 54% on net Immigration growth.
The new estimates for the year to March 2017 suggest EU net migration has now returned to a level similar to that last seen in March 2014. Its being publicised on the news that we are seeing a significant movement out of the UK.
2. Relocation of the Northern Power house and HS2
3. 10% uplift to increase supply/reduce sale price/Increased affordability
4. Housing need based on projected

More details about Rep ID: 2810

Representation ID: 2775

SUPPORT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2775

Representation ID: 2525

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

Prudent

More details about Rep ID: 2525

Representation ID: 2220

SUPPORT Mr James Bolton

Summary:

Sensible to have a contingency

More details about Rep ID: 2220

Representation ID: 2127

OBJECT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

The housing requirements should be set at the OAN level minus completions and committed dwellings. ie. 4210 not 7820.
More action must be taken towards completion of site granted permissions already.

More details about Rep ID: 2127

Representation ID: 1796

OBJECT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Do not allow for contingency. Allocate sites to meet housing
need but not above housing need. In allocating sites for
housing there is a rigorous test to ensure deliver ability this
should be sufficient without need for contingency. Past
experience shows there is significant number of dwellings
delivered by windfalls; add to this rural exception sites and
approach to functional clusters then there could be an
overprovision. In addition, no mechanism in place to stop land
banking of original sites leading to development of contingency
sites followed by later, but within plan period, development of
originally allocated sites.

More details about Rep ID: 1796

Representation ID: 1730

OBJECT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Do not allow for contingency. Allocate sites to meet housing
need but not above housing need. In allocating sites for
housing there is a rigorous test to ensure deliver ability this
should be sufficient without need for contingency. Past
experience shows there is significant number of dwellings
delivered by windfalls; add to this rural exception sites and
approach to functional clusters then there could be an
overprovision. In addition, no mechanism in place to stop land
banking of original sites leading to development of contingency
sites followed by later, but within plan period, development of
originally allocated sites.

More details about Rep ID: 1730

Representation ID: 1690

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Makes good sense to be able to apply contingencies as and when required

More details about Rep ID: 1690

Representation ID: 1534

SUPPORT Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt

Summary:

I support a defined contingency plan as this would avoid development being permitted in future years being governed by land owners offering land for development outside any planned framework.

More details about Rep ID: 1534

Representation ID: 1513

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

The council will face a difficult challenge in meeting its existing targets. The entire process of producing a local plan has been greatly delayed and this consultation asks respondents to consider the housing needs to 2036. It is inappropriate at this stage to consider further contingencies beyond being able to respond to windfall sites.

More details about Rep ID: 1513

Representation ID: 1485

OBJECT Mr Ron Raisey

Summary:

Villages are being dragged into the towns by developments that are not necessary. Onehouse Parish is being eroded by developments given approval on the fringe of Stowmarket and Parish boundary moved so that Stowmarket get benefit. Lamd grabbing!

More details about Rep ID: 1485

Representation ID: 1441

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

Summary:

We agree that it would be prudent to apply a contingency in the form of reserve sites in the event that allocated sites do not come forward within a specified time period. This is particularly the case given the DCLG consultation paper "Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Areas", which, if adopted, will increase the OAHN for mid-Suffolk by 27%

More details about Rep ID: 1441

Representation ID: 1109

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

The fundamental assumption that the forecast of housing to 2036 is correct is simply wrong. Predicting housing requirements so far in advance is not possible with any degree of accuracy. Therefore applying a contingency on forecast figures is not the way to proceed.
A far better approach would be to estimate the housing needs on a shorter timescale say 5-6 years, monitor the actual needs during this period and then set the housing requirements on a rolling basis.

More details about Rep ID: 1109

Representation ID: 1058

OBJECT Simon Bell

Summary:

If the Council is permitted to allocate a contingency, this seems to allow for housing sites to be above the objectively assessed Housing Need (OAN). There is no method described for how the level of contingency will be set, objectively or otherwise.

Equally, with this option, "windfall development" is not taken into account. If the Council delivers appropriate infrastructure development over the period, significant, unplanned, development sites are likely to come forward. The reason for insufficient windfall development within the current plan period is likely due to the failure to provide sufficient infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 1058

Representation ID: 1009

SUPPORT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Some villagers feel no contingency is the answer but we consider that allowing a contingency of all currently documented reserve sites makes the potential developments known to all. This is then a finite list for future local planning decisions. On this basis local planning - Parish & Town councils - will not be overridden as so often happens today.

More details about Rep ID: 1009

Representation ID: 959

SUPPORT Mr. Gerald Battye

Summary:

Contingency sensible

More details about Rep ID: 959

Representation ID: 933

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 933

Representation ID: 745

SUPPORT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

yes there should be a contingency, because we well know the recent history of Sudbury of extreme infill. It is better to allow for contingency now, than to lose the option later. Immediate steps should be taken to identify a contingency employment area and a contingency housing area. These should certainly be sited such as to avoid sprawl or ribbon development, such as threatened on Waldingfield Road and as we see happening so much round Great Cornard; we give suggestions

More details about Rep ID: 745

Representation ID: 391

SUPPORT Mr Ralph Carpenter

Summary:

Important to have an excess of potential development sites at any one to allow for market fluctuations, acceptance that the economics of development in the district are challenging.
Also important to have enough sites for self builders

More details about Rep ID: 391

Representation ID: 374

OBJECT Mrs Jane Neal

Summary:

In the last 20 years our villages have been relentlessly developed until they are already becoming a mass conurbation of thousands of houses without a heart.
Surely any planner can see that enough is enough- this area has already seen more than its fair share of development.
With Brexit and the resulting reduction in immigration, surely there's a case to review/reduce previous estimates of housing needs.

More details about Rep ID: 374

Representation ID: 351

OBJECT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Do not agree with this

More details about Rep ID: 351

Representation ID: 261

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Numbers seem to be in the ball park required

More details about Rep ID: 261

Representation ID: 69

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

Summary:

Farming, accommodation and leisure services business

More details about Rep ID: 69

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

Powered by OpusConsult