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) - Option SET2

Representation ID: 13113

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Under the duty to co-operate it will be necessary for Babergh and Mid Suffolk, along with Suffolk Coastal to consider the benefits of devising a shared settlement hierarchy across the authorities. A joint settlement hierarchy would enable the authorities to compare similar settlements with one another (even when in neighbouring authorities) which may benefit spatial distribution options. A shared settlement hierarchy would be essential where the spatial strategy is also shared across administrative boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 13113

Representation ID: 12749

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

Summary:

Option SET2 which takes account of proximity to larger settlements where higher order shops and services are available, is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 12749

Representation ID: 12193

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

Summary:

We would suggest that Option SET2, Key & Supporting Services, is the most appropriate method for drafting a revised settlement hierarchy. Such an approach enables settlements to be evaluated in a wider context, therefore providing a more accurate indication of their sustainability. Consequently, in its proposed form, the Joint Settlement Hierarchy is supported. From this hierarchy, it is noted that Holbrook continues to be classified as a 'Core Village'.

More details about Rep ID: 12193

Representation ID: 11920

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

Summary:

While Pigeon supports Option SET2 as the preferred option, they do object to the
methodology as set out in the Settlement Hierarchy Review 2017.

More details about Rep ID: 11920

Representation ID: 11824

SUPPORT Dedham Vale Society (Mr. David Eking)

Summary:

We have no quarrel with the review of the settlement hierarchy which seems to iron out some earlier inconsistencies and leave much of the Dedham Vale AONB in Suffolk as Open Countryside - which it is what it is and must remain. We support SET2.

More details about Rep ID: 11824

Representation ID: 10231

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

Summary:

We support option SET2, a review of the settlement based upon a weighted scoring system recognising relationships to higher order settlements, key services and supporting services in principle.

More details about Rep ID: 10231

Representation ID: 10126

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

We Support Option SET2 in reviewing settlements based upon a weighted scoring system recognising relationships to higher order settlements, key services and supporting services. This more closely aligns with the NPPF approach to ensuring the delivery of high quality housing at Paragraphs 54 and 55. Housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, including where development in one village supports services and facilities in another.

More details about Rep ID: 10126

Representation ID: 8790

SUPPORT Cllr John Field

Summary:

The allocations of villages to the settlement hierarchy based on the proposed technique produces significant anomalies. Additional weighting factors need to be added to ensure the allocation of similar villages is consistent..
Currently for instance Claydon is a Core village but Barham, which has a core populated area contiguous with Claydon with a doctors practice, convenience store, shared Primary School, Secondary School, village hall and community centre is classified as a "Hinterland" village. Baylham, a village of some 100 dwellings is Hinterland but lacks any facility other than a village hall, proximity to Needham Market and a bus service.

More details about Rep ID: 8790

Representation ID: 8758

COMMENT Anthony Pickering

Summary:

I applaud the concept of an hierarchical approach with a weighted scoring system in principle, but I am concerned that in practice it could be too complicated to implement and might lead to an overly rigid interpretation. The reality is that every community has slightly different concerns and priorities; some may interact with their designated 'parent' community on certain issues but with an 'uncle/aunt' community within the family tree on other matters.

More details about Rep ID: 8758

Representation ID: 8693

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

[On behalf of Trinity College]
In reviewing settlements based upon a weighted scoring system recognising relationships to higher order settlements, key services and supporting services. This more closely aligns with the NPPF approach to ensuring the delivery of high quality housing at Paragraphs 54 and 55. Housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, including where development in one village supports services and facilities in another.

More details about Rep ID: 8693

Representation ID: 8508

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

Better that SET1 but still too simplistic.
The plan needs to recognise the impact of technology going forward. Electric cars, carbon neutral hosing, home based working, distance learning and the availability of all manner of services delivered to the door and via the internet, means that small villages and hamlets are fast becoming fully sustainable and this needs to be recognised within the plan.
With regard to strong and healthy communities, the contribution this makes towards sustainability and cohesion needs to be recognised more fully with in the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 8508

Representation ID: 8468

SUPPORT Mr. Derrick Haley

Summary:

we need flexibility

More details about Rep ID: 8468

Representation ID: 8170

SUPPORT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

This is realistic most people in Babergh access services in a variety of places, mainly travelling by car if they do not live in a town as public transport is not a realistic option in Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 8170

Representation ID: 7940

SUPPORT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

We support option SET2

More details about Rep ID: 7940

Representation ID: 7831

SUPPORT mr michael hammond

Summary:

Support with caveat that assessment needs to reflect the level and quality of services in the location

More details about Rep ID: 7831

Representation ID: 7716

SUPPORT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

This is the better option.

More details about Rep ID: 7716

Representation ID: 7458

SUPPORT Mr Watling Michael

Summary:

Consider all aspects

More details about Rep ID: 7458

Representation ID: 7369

SUPPORT Mr Richard Milne

Summary:

Due to the rural nature of the district, it is considered appropriate that the settlement hierarchy takes into account nearby facilities and services which can reasonably be utilised by neighbouring settlements. The Street, Wickham Skeith, whilst not having a village store is a small settlement which is sited sustainably on a well used road with a bus stop directly outside, both of which provide a direct route to nearby stores and facilities which could be reached via bicycle, bus or car in both Gislingham and Eye. The Street is also located within close proximity of strategic employment land near Eye.

More details about Rep ID: 7369

Representation ID: 7258

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Methodology is flawed - it biases development towards the Ipswich fringe ignoring the nature of the villages around the Ipswich fringe. It is noticeable that Sproughton suddenly becomes defined as a Core Village when it was previously a Hinterland village (list of services provided within the village was incorrect) which then makes it a target for higher levels of housing. Proportional allocation of housing dependent on parish size may be simplistic but is a good starting point for allocation that can be instinctively seen as fairer - similar to the organic growth of villages and towns that has happened historically.

More details about Rep ID: 7258

Representation ID: 6956

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

I object strongly to this option. The process and arbitrary scoring system based on unclear criteria without cooperation or consultation is unsound.
The very factors of relationship are in equal quantity the very factors of diminishing community identity which risk creeping coalescence which is unacceptable as this is then being used as justification to throw them into the firing line of that risk.
They also take no account of the capacity of a service like a school etc. or the actual travelling time or transport services which rarely compare by distance

More details about Rep ID: 6956

Representation ID: 6655

OBJECT Stuart Wells

Summary:

I have no objection to the approach using a weighted scoring system per se; my objection is to the use of woefully inaccurate information about our village of Gislingham.

In the Settlement Hierarchy Review (August 2017) Gislingham has a score of 20 when should be 13 at most.

2 points were given for "bus stops (with daily peak-time services etc" . The first bus from Gislingham departs 9.30am, making it useless for anything other than shopping.

5 points were given for the category Bakes\Butchers\Hairdressers\Newsagents\Bank\ATM\Fuel Station. We have a single small convenience store.

Gislingham should be a Hinterland Village.

More details about Rep ID: 6655

Representation ID: 6497

COMMENT Ms Carole Newman

Summary:

The villages of Mendham and Withersdale Street have been linked together for the purposes of this assessment. This is inappropriate as the village of Withersdale Street does not have the same facilities that exist in Mendham (according to the assessment) - no school, shop, pub, public transport and poor internet. An actual score of 7 would be more appropriate to Withersdale Street. There are also discrepancies with the scoring for Mendham - there is no shop or public transport.

More details about Rep ID: 6497

Representation ID: 6476

SUPPORT Mr M Crouch

Summary:

Support in principle Option SET2, but the points allocation system needs re-visiting and amending.

More details about Rep ID: 6476

Representation ID: 6355

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Support with reservations set out in answers to Q11 and Q12

More details about Rep ID: 6355

Representation ID: 6283

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Key and supporting services

More details about Rep ID: 6283

Representation ID: 5195

SUPPORT Woodbridge Properties Ltd represented by Shallish Associated Limited (Mr A Shallish)

Summary:

Option SET2 is considered to be the most appropriate option. This should enable development within the rural settlements which will help to sustain these rural communities. It should acknowledge the interrelationship between settlements and not simply focus on what key services exist in a particular settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 5195

Representation ID: 4952

SUPPORT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

We agree with this option.

More details about Rep ID: 4952

Representation ID: 4883

OBJECT Mr John Christie

Summary:

The points system suggested is too simplistic and ignores the potential to cope with enlargement of the population. Such a system to be useful must also take account of its capacity (e.g. Surgeries, Shops, Infrastructure) and the probable cost of enlarging that system proportional to the envisaged increase in size.

More details about Rep ID: 4883

Representation ID: 4589

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 4589

Representation ID: 4345

OBJECT Mrs Stacey Achour

Summary:

too subjective and doesn't at what capacity those services are runiing. Copdock and Washbrook the school is there but full, the village hall is there but not safe to walk too for many villages as the paths are not clear to walk along and overgrown. There is no local shop and already residents need a car to get to further services in surrounding towns so more housing would exacerbate that.
The roads that are there become too congested already at morning and evening rush hours and to a standstill if there is an issue on the A12/interchange.

More details about Rep ID: 4345

Representation ID: 4304

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both

More details about Rep ID: 4304

Representation ID: 4145

COMMENT Mr Richard Hurdwell

Summary:

weighting items is better than not, for example having a school might score positive but a well oversubscribed or inaccessible school could even be a negative score ?

More details about Rep ID: 4145

Representation ID: 3870

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

This approach leaves too much scope for subjective decisions. It also assumes mobility, which given the generally poor public transport means a car, which si not possible for many people due to age or income.
The existence of services does not mean access to services - many are currently operating at capacity or inaccessible to those without transport.

A clear lack of imagination in this plan.

More details about Rep ID: 3870

Representation ID: 3603

OBJECT debbie ping

Summary:

The criteria take no account of the existing pressures on facilities. For example A primary or upper school may exist but the access roads, parking etc may be totally inadequate. The presence of a shop, surgery etc does not necessarily mean it's enough for the existing population of the village and no attempt appears to have been made to assess whether facilities would have further capacity - this needs to be considered.

More details about Rep ID: 3603

Representation ID: 3532

COMMENT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.

More details about Rep ID: 3532

Representation ID: 3382

OBJECT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

This approach leaves too much scope for subjective decisions. It also assumes mobility, which given the generally poor public transport means a car, which si not possible for many people due to age or income.

More details about Rep ID: 3382

Representation ID: 3318

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Merry

Summary:

In relation to your own scoring system Copdock and Washbrook would actually come out closer to the 0-8 and as such would it not be classified as a Hamlet and countryside, or at a push Hinterland village, not Ipswich fringe

More details about Rep ID: 3318

Representation ID: 3281

OBJECT Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs)

Summary:

Issue with how a relationship to higher order settlement is defined. Drinkstone's scoring is incorrect - we are 8 miles from the nearest town , not 3 and 2.5 miles from the nearest core village, not 1.5. There is no public transport link to any core village and an infrequent bus service to Bury, and even less frequent to Stowmarket. All the roads serving the village are narrow, winding and unlit with no pavements and many blind bends and junctions. The planning inspectorate has already cited the poor roads and lack of public transport as rendering Drinsktone unsustainable under NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 3281

Representation ID: 3119

OBJECT Iain Pocock

Summary:

Strongly disagree - village facilities are key and with aging demographics it is even more important - other places are not always that accessible even when apparently close by due to traffic congestion, public transport limitations etc. For example Copdock/Washbrook whilst close to Ipswich is an island at peak times due to traffic. Of the local doctors (both outside the village) , one is closed to new people, the other at capacity, the village primary school is full, secondary school children have to walk along small unlit country lanes with no pavements to reach bus stops etc.

More details about Rep ID: 3119

Representation ID: 3003

OBJECT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

We feel that this method of assessment is inferior to the Option SET1 as it
does not emphasis the poor range of facilities and supporting services in Copdock
& Washbrook.

More details about Rep ID: 3003

Representation ID: 2923

SUPPORT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

We agree with the review proposal

More details about Rep ID: 2923

Representation ID: 2884

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

Not enough empahsis is being placed on the need to maintain the identity of vilages and to stop creeping coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 2884

Representation ID: 2833

COMMENT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

This approach is OK for people with mobility but is a disadvantage to those who have no means of transport

More details about Rep ID: 2833

Representation ID: 2777

SUPPORT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2777

Representation ID: 2527

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

Agree.Pragmatic.

More details about Rep ID: 2527

Representation ID: 2366

OBJECT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

Before responding to the questions posed it needs to be stated that Fressingfield Parish Council strongly oppose the category that the village has been placed within the tables pages 25 - 27. Fressingfield is a Hinterland village and not a Core Village. This must be corrected at the earliest point for fear of influencing current planning decisions based on this erroneous classification.

More details about Rep ID: 2366

Representation ID: 2181

OBJECT Mr Michael Grant

Summary:

I cannot understand how Gislingham has been designated as a Core Village. Based on the survey document for the village there is a significant discrepancy between the survey and the scores used in classifying the village.

Gislingham should score 12 points based on the criteria set out in the councils document - please see attached comments providing a more detailed summary of the errors in the process.

Based on this Gislingham should be classified as a Hinterland Village - not a Core Village.

More details about Rep ID: 2181

Representation ID: 2147

OBJECT Buxhall Parish Council (Mrs Tina Newell)

Summary:

Buxhall is listed within the heirachy as a Hinterland Village based on its facilities and close proximty to a core village.

Buxhalls facilities today are: 1 church, 1 village hall, 1 allotment site, 1 playing field and 1 pub. The broadband spend is debatable at 17mb but even to include this would give a total point score of 6 which would mean it is a Hamlet.

The current Joint Local Plan gives it a score of 9 which is clealy wrong as Buxhall does not have a Bakers/Butchers/Hairdressers/Newsagent etc neither is it within 1.2 miles of the nearest Core village.

More details about Rep ID: 2147

Representation ID: 1884

OBJECT Mr Leslie Smith

Summary:

I cannot understand how Gislingham has been designated as a Core Village. Based on the survey document for the village there is a significant discrepancy between the survey and the scores used in classifying the village.

Gislingham should score 12 points based on the criteria set out in the councils document - please see attached comments providing a more detailed summary of the errors in the process.

Based on this Gislingham should be classified as a Hinterland Village - not a Core Village.

I have also attached the relevant extracts from the 2 documents referenced.

More details about Rep ID: 1884

Representation ID: 1803

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Support this approach provided the key and supporting services are accurately reflected in the criteria presented.

More details about Rep ID: 1803

Representation ID: 1738

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Support this approach provided the key and supporting services are accurately reflected in the criteria presented.

More details about Rep ID: 1738

Representation ID: 1695

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

If our village had good broadband speeds our classification could well have been a core village not a hinterland one, so SCC and BT's failure to supply broadband now has significant implications for the future structure of the village. Both those organisations should hang their heads in shame about not providing this essential utility. There are still houses in the village who do not have a BT land-line service - let alone broadband!

More details about Rep ID: 1695

Representation ID: 1540

SUPPORT Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt

Summary:

The scoring approach is too simplistic and leads to an inaccurate picture of the facilities available.

More details about Rep ID: 1540

Representation ID: 1520

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

The survey is based on civil parishes though it includes Long Thurlow which is not a parish. Yet the housing allocation ignores these boundaries and includes sites in Barking under Needham Market. Some parishes have extremely low levels of population should these maintain a separate identify i.e Little Finborough and Great Finborough

More details about Rep ID: 1520

Representation ID: 1454

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

Summary:

SET 2 provides a more comprehensive assessment of a village, rather than just its own facilities and services. When studying a settlement in its surroundings, links to other settlements have to be taken into account. For example, the residents of Bramford are located just 3 miles from the centre of Ipswich, with sustainable connections in both directions. Under SET1, Bramford would be misrepresented as these nearby facilities would not be assessed.

More details about Rep ID: 1454

Representation ID: 1033

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

SET2 is fine if adequate transport links exist to and from the higher order settlement.
Some infrastructure, bus services, broadband etc may have to be in place before this approach can even start. Suggest you reassess villages based on the criteria in the report (stores, primary schools etc), then draw in transport and only then propose joint settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 1033

Representation ID: 908

OBJECT Mr Timothy Wilmshurst

Summary:

This is little more than an excuse for development without local facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 908

Representation ID: 772

SUPPORT Mr Kevin Armstrong

Summary:

Clearly some kind of weighted scoring system is required to establish a credible and realistic settlement hierarchy. As ever the devil is in the detail and the exact weighting is crucial; this could be argued at length but giving equal weight to a bus stop as a doctors surgery is just one example of the debatable weighting scores used.

More details about Rep ID: 772

Representation ID: 728

COMMENT Stephen Harrison

Summary:

It's all very well allowing 2points for schools and doctors but when the allocation of places has already been filled by previous development then the only way that would be relevant was if new ones were built and surround infrastructure was improved .

More details about Rep ID: 728

Representation ID: 616

SUPPORT Groton Manor (Carey Fraulo)

Summary:

I fully support this option 2 as it reflects how many of our communities work and co-exist together recognising the relationship to higher order settlements will enable a more even spread of housing development rather than concentration in the core village. Hamlet and countryside settlements related to the core village would benefit from housing development which is spread more widely and thinly avoiding the crowding of housing in the core villages which has the effect of "urbanising" our core villages and in time the "local village" culture.

More details about Rep ID: 616

Representation ID: 531

SUPPORT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

This appears to be the most efficient way to achieve the District council objectives but as Redgrave is situated on the edge of the county boundary with South Norfolk and Diss 5 miles away the situation is more complex for it than for other hinterland villages deeper in Mid Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 531

Representation ID: 363

COMMENT John Brownfield

Summary:

In undertaking this assessment, Mendham and Withersdale Street have been linked together. This is inappropriate as Withersdale Street has very few of the facilities that exist in Mendham e.g. no schools, no shops or pub, very poor internet, no public transport at all. A score of 7 would be more appropriate to Withersdale Street. There also seem to be some discrepancies in the scoring for Mendham as well.

More details about Rep ID: 363

Representation ID: 264

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Some odd results - Stoke By Nayland

More details about Rep ID: 264

Representation ID: 75

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

Summary:

Hinterland villages can use services in key towns and key villages

More details about Rep ID: 75

Representation ID: 40

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

People need more services than just schools and shops. Access to transport is key to this when services are more than a half mile away.
At present the only areas that have these services within easy access for people who do not drive are towns. Public Transport in the district is poor and becoming even worse at present eg yet further reductions in the vital 91 Sudbury, Hadleigh, Ipswich bus.

More details about Rep ID: 40

Representation ID: 32

COMMENT Mr Michael Morley

Summary:

Supporting services should only be taken into account where proximity to those services is enabled by public transport access

More details about Rep ID: 32

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

Powered by OpusConsult