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 HD2

Representation ID: 11668

SUPPORT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

I support Option HD2.

More details about Rep ID: 11668

Representation ID: 10106

OBJECT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

We Object to Option HD2 which allows for no contingency for allocating above the housing requirement as this would not adequately account for changes in circumstances and housing shortfalls over the Local Plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 10106

Representation ID: 9033

SUPPORT Mr Michael Plowright

Summary:

New developments should be limited to the required need.
Otherwise 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: 9033

Representation ID: 8892

COMMENT Mr Guy McGregor

Summary:

I am prepared to accept the need to provide housing in MSDC to deal with local need and natural growth but do not support housing growth over and above this.
Other area providing the impetus for e.g. London, should provide for their own housing growth.

More details about Rep ID: 8892

Representation ID: 8877

COMMENT Mrs Jessica Fleming

Summary:

I do not believe that allocating much above the OAN level is achievable, even if the OAN is achievable. This should not prevent reserve sites coming forward

More details about Rep ID: 8877

Representation ID: 8726

SUPPORT Anthony Pickering

Summary:

I believe HD2 is more practical in the current economic environment. It is also more attainable in the reasonably near future, given that current performance already lags behind current requirements.

More details about Rep ID: 8726

Representation ID: 8708

SUPPORT Mrs Kerry Gladden

Summary:

No contingency should be required if BDC have done their assessments correctly.

More details about Rep ID: 8708

Representation ID: 8686

OBJECT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

[On behalf of Trinity College]
This would not adequately account for changes in circumstances and housing shortfalls over the Local Plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 8686

Representation ID: 7454

SUPPORT Mr Watling Michael

Summary:

Lets deal with immediate needs to start with. Accommodation needs and forms may change in the future

More details about Rep ID: 7454

Representation ID: 7277

SUPPORT Mrs Gillian West

Summary:

We prefer this option as it means sites will receive proper scrutiny & application of planning rules and, crucially, should take account of local need & employment opportunities to reflect policy intentions.

More details about Rep ID: 7277

Representation ID: 6928

SUPPORT Mrs Carol Catchpole

Summary:

Don't see that we need a contingency, Brexit could mean we need less houses than our 5 plan has forecast. Surely Windfall sites will cover any deficiency. We need a master plan, not too many sites, which could mean a fragmented approach without sustainability.

More details about Rep ID: 6928

Representation ID: 6897

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

I do not agree with a contingency. A contingency would mean that maybe more planning would be approved in addition to the already granted developments. This would put a strain on all aspects including infrastructure and maintaining the green spaces and protecting wildlife.

More details about Rep ID: 6897

Representation ID: 6886

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

I do not agree with a contingency. A contingency would mean that maybe more planning would be approved in addition to the already granted developments. This would put a strain on all aspects including infrastructure and maintaining the green spaces and protecting wildlife.

More details about Rep ID: 6886

Representation ID: 6805

SUPPORT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Probably the best option as windfall has adequately provided above need in the past.
The biggest concern is reserve sites may be tacked on over and above the housing need and will not go through as robust and current a consultation process if left on a list for years.

More details about Rep ID: 6805

Representation ID: 6380

SUPPORT Mr Robin Coates

Summary:

Allocating beyond the requirement is likely to lead to 'Land being banked' as earmarked for development. This may have the effect of depressing house prices adjacent to areas allocated for future use, making some homes difficult to sell.

More details about Rep ID: 6380

Representation ID: 6274

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

See previous comment

More details about Rep ID: 6274

Representation ID: 5827

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

HD2 is preferred together with a strengthened strategy to ensure rapid delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 5827

Representation ID: 5754

OBJECT Miss Kim Brett

Summary:

No contingency plan is needed if the council do their initial groundwork correctly.

More details about Rep ID: 5754

Representation ID: 5691

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Given Babergh's lack of success of getting developers to build houses that already have planning permission it seems unlikely that Babergh will be able to build the 7,820 houses it says is needed. So, no contingency required.
Having also reviewd Ipswich's local plan it seems that they want to allocate some housing to BDC - this should be resisted. If Ipswich have a housing requirement that needs to be fullfilled by neighboring districts then that reqruirement should be spread across all surrounding districts - not just Babergh. - there is a 'Duty to Cooperate' not a 'Duty to Roll over'

More details about Rep ID: 5691

Representation ID: 5609

SUPPORT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

No need for contingency. If I were a developer and had done my homework I'd be pretty confident that the NPPF would see me through.

More details about Rep ID: 5609

Representation ID: 5533

SUPPORT 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: 5533

Representation ID: 5454

COMMENT Wherstead Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Knibbs)

Summary:

There should be no requirement for contingency. A good plan will ensure sufficient supply, with windfall sites, up to 3 dwellings, providing the additional supply.

More details about Rep ID: 5454

Representation ID: 5367

SUPPORT Mrs Rebecca Wallis

Summary:

This option will mean that it is only the areas where there is an actual need for housing as opposed to where it is cheaper, easier or quicker to build. This will ensure that the housing is planned and sustainable and in keeping with the existing housing.

More details about Rep ID: 5367

Representation ID: 5365

SUPPORT theresa vinnicombe

Summary:

This option will ensure building is carried out in areas of need rather than those considered cheaper, quicker and easier to develop. The environment and existing dwellings should be deemed more important.

More details about Rep ID: 5365

Representation ID: 5217

SUPPORT Mrs Ann Hurst

Summary:

No contingency the plan should have been done thorougherly in the first place to look at the options available before taking the next stage

More details about Rep ID: 5217

Representation ID: 5069

SUPPORT Mr Stephen Appegate

Summary:

Windfall sites should be sufficient we don't need anymore contingent than that. Giving permissions over and above the forecast could lead to fragmented development without sustainable infrastructure. Sites that are cheaper to develop will be developed first with no overall master plan in place.q

More details about Rep ID: 5069

Representation ID: 4932

SUPPORT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Agree there should not be a contingency. A contingency allows the planning authority 'Carte Blanche' to pass planning applications whenever they arise and it also takes the pressure off to enforce planning applications already agreed.

More details about Rep ID: 4932

Representation ID: 4874

SUPPORT Mr John Christie

Summary:

Consideration of a contingency will extend the process of preparing the Plan at a time when it is urgently required to be completed.

More details about Rep ID: 4874

Representation ID: 4416

SUPPORT Mrs Maggie Talmer

Summary:

Suffolk is looking to meet the environmental challenges to become the greenest county in Britain. Any development needs to be sympathetic to this view to achieve a balance between housing, renewable energy, and maintaining our green spaces.

More details about Rep ID: 4416

Representation ID: 4338

SUPPORT Mrs Stacey Achour

Summary:

create a plan and stick to it

More details about Rep ID: 4338

Representation ID: 4317

OBJECT Mrs Stacey Achour

Summary:

Create a housing plan that meets the housing need only, and if the sites are fairly put forward and agreed and the developers appropriately selected then it is unlikely that windfall or reserve sites are needed.

More details about Rep ID: 4317

Representation ID: 4218

SUPPORT Mr Tony Jackson

Summary:

Retain the characteristics of the area, not assume increased growth over the agreed requirement

More details about Rep ID: 4218

Representation ID: 4100

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

Do not allow for contingency. Allocate sites to meet housing
need but not above housing need.

More details about Rep ID: 4100

Representation ID: 3411

SUPPORT MR COLIN LOCKWOOD

Summary:

Area already very developed

More details about Rep ID: 3411

Representation ID: 3380

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: 3380

Representation ID: 2908

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

We need to reduce the period between granting planning permission and the delivery of completed buildings.

More details about Rep ID: 2908

Representation ID: 2709

OBJECT Kath Polley

Summary:

No contingency should be considered when developers have already agreed sites. Ad hoc approach is not democratic & against current strategies

More details about Rep ID: 2709

Representation ID: 1797

OBJECT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

HD1 and HD2 seem to be an either / or situation. If we go with supporting HD1 above, we seem to be 'objecting' to HD2. However, HD2 has the 'windfall' factor included which should not be overlooked, particularly as Debenham has had 40+ windfall sites in the last few years.

More details about Rep ID: 1797

Representation ID: 1731

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

HD1 and HD2 seem to be an either / or situation. If we go with supporting HD1 above, we seem to be 'objecting' to HD2. However, HD2 has the 'windfall' factor included which should not be overlooked, particularly as Debenham has had 40+ windfall sites in the last few years.

More details about Rep ID: 1731

Representation ID: 1339

OBJECT Mrs helen fawthrop

Summary:

I think there is a real danger that if we have contingency sites, what will happen is that development will be prioritised by sites which are the cheapest to develop; rather than those requiring less extra financial input into supporting infrastructure. This could lead to development on an ad hoc basis which does not represent the original overarching plan. We should refuse to consider a new application from a developer where they already hold permission on other sites for a period of time which they have not yet developed.

More details about Rep ID: 1339

Representation ID: 350

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Over a 10 -15 year period the 'windfall' sites can contribute a significant number to the pool required. They should be counted in any calculations made.

More details about Rep ID: 350

Representation ID: 165

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

There is likely to be additional residential development via householders redeveloping their property and or gardens. Further good use could be made of empty flats above shops and should be encouraged .

More details about Rep ID: 165

Representation ID: 39

OBJECT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

No need for this as current evidence shows effect of BREXIT will be to reduce housing demand in future.

More details about Rep ID: 39

Representation ID: 31

SUPPORT Mr Michael Morley

Summary:

Windfall data and past experience would suggest that future needs would be met without contingency.

More details about Rep ID: 31

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

Powered by OpusConsult