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 MHD1

Representation ID: 12993

SUPPORT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

We support the option which focuses development around the county town as this recognises Ipswich's key role in providing employment, services and facilities to the wider population in the IHMA and IFEA. This in turn supports the growth and regeneration of the town as identified in your document, which benefits the wider population through the quality and quantity of employment, services and facilities that can be provided together with associated infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 12993

Representation ID: 12709

COMMENT NHS England - Midlands and East (East) (Ms Kerry Harding)

Summary:

A number of core healthcare services are located in Ipswich; therefore from a primary healthcare perspective this option should enable appropriate mitigation within specific areas, to support NHS England's strategy to promote Primary Healthcare Hubs within strategic locations.

More details about Rep ID: 12709

Representation ID: 12641

COMMENT Environment Agency (Miss Charlie Christensen)

Summary:

options BHD1 and MHS1 offer greater potential to redevelop brownfield land and with that comes the opportunity to improve land and water quality.

More details about Rep ID: 12641

Representation ID: 10250

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Whilst we support the Councils recognition of the benefits of locating development on the outskirts of Ipswich, we consider that a County Town focussed approach, option BHD1 for Babergh and option MHD1 for Mid Suffolk, would be detrimental to the growth of other sustainable settlements in the Districts

More details about Rep ID: 10250

Representation ID: 8776

SUPPORT Stoke Ash and Thwaite Parish Council (Mr Daniel Roth)

Summary:

Stoke Ash and Thwaite parish believe this approach to the planning needs would be the best one to be adopted

More details about Rep ID: 8776

Representation ID: 8517

OBJECT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

We do not support this approach

More details about Rep ID: 8517

Representation ID: 7838

SUPPORT mr michael hammond

Summary:

I believe Mid Suffolk should be offered same options as Babergh including 15% option .
In the absence of 15% I support this option . Development needs to be focused on our County town enabling it to grow and prosper and in order to provide those county / regional facilities and services which we all benefit from .

More details about Rep ID: 7838

Representation ID: 7738

SUPPORT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

the proposed distribution as shown represents a reasonable balance and distribution of growth

More details about Rep ID: 7738

Representation ID: 7722

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Focus on Ipswich would be detremental as increases time spent in traffic which affects climate change and does not provide sufficient links to towns for recreation or public transport for workers to towns other than Ipswich which is unreliable at rush hour.

More details about Rep ID: 7722

Representation ID: 7718

SUPPORT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Transport corridor focussed is best as this option would provide the most sustainable option by providing development close to the transport network, allowing for people to be less reliant on cars and so applies to the strategic policies of mitigating climate change.

More details about Rep ID: 7718

Representation ID: 7207

OBJECT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

Communities should not lose their identity by swamping and creeping coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 7207

Representation ID: 6820

SUPPORT mrs Netty Verkroost

Summary:

Productive agricultural land in rural areas should not be used for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 6820

Representation ID: 5588

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

Copdock & Washbrook village cannot accommodate a 35%+ increase in residential properties. 5% is more realistic.

More details about Rep ID: 5588

Representation ID: 5473

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

Would like to see development which sits close to employment and infrastructure and maintains the differential between towns and the surrounding villages and hamlets. Need to protect the varied characters of our rural small villages and hamlets and not forget that tourism contributes to the local economy.

More details about Rep ID: 5473

Representation ID: 5010

SUPPORT Mr John Christie

Summary:

The question here should be - which category wants and needs more housing. The answer is that the major towns and urban areas have surplus shops, business premises etc. For example, in Bury there are empty shops and other premises. All the shops need more business and there is ample parking around for cars. Anyone from the core villages who needs anything beyond the basic necessities automatically goes to the major centres. Therefore, that is where new housing should go. It will help those shops and industries and avoid the pressure on the core villages.

More details about Rep ID: 5010

Representation ID: 3945

SUPPORT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

Critical mass is required to attract high profile industry and employees. Housing expansion should be close to employment areas to avoid significant travel.
Development wherever possible should be on Brown Field and existing sites.

More details about Rep ID: 3945

Representation ID: 2930

SUPPORT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

This requires the lowest housing contribution for hinterland villages and hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 2930

Representation ID: 1698

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

More details about Rep ID: 1698

Representation ID: 1648

OBJECT Winston Parish Council (Mrs Lizzie Taurozevicius)

Summary:

We think Hinterland villages should only be 5%.

More details about Rep ID: 1648

Representation ID: 1532

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

There is little evidence to show that development brings benefits to individual communities at best it might help a limited number of businesses continue. An example Thurston now has a larger population than Eye but still lacks a GP surgery. The growth in the number of houses in Needham Market has not been matched by an increase in employment opportunities and significant employment opportunities are continuing to be lost.

The need for houses in all communities should be without caveat. If a community cannot sustain additional houses then that community should be merged with a neighbouring parish.

More details about Rep ID: 1532

Representation ID: 1467

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

Summary:

The Ipswich fringe area should be the focus for growth within the District owing to the strong degree of influence from Ipswich. The core villages in the fringe area look towards Ipswich for many of their services as well as for employment. There are good road and public transport links between many of the villages and Ipswich. We agree that consideration for future growth should be given to communities with the strongest functional and sustainable relationships with Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 1467

Representation ID: 1231

SUPPORT mr chris g

Summary:

I support combination of MHD1 and HMD3
These options concentrate development in areas which already have the infrastructure supporting growth. People value good access to work, shops and leisure facilities.
These two options allow for 10% of housing requirement to be allocated to 'Hinterland Villages'.
A certain amount of development in these small to medium sized villages is a good thing. Any more than this would threaten the unique social structures highly valued by residents of these villages.

More details about Rep ID: 1231

Representation ID: 795

SUPPORT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)

Summary:

Option MHD1 is our preferred option being in line with our stated objectives to preserve the quality of the rural environment whilst accepting the need for sustainable growth. This is particularly relevant when one looks at the pattern of development during the period of the Current Plan when 60% of houses were built in rural locations.

More details about Rep ID: 795

Representation ID: 774

SUPPORT Mr Kevin Armstrong

Summary:

This would reflect the recent historical development of population growth in this part of Suffolk.
I therefore favour it.

More details about Rep ID: 774

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

Powered by OpusConsult