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 BHD2

Representation ID: 13135

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

Summary:

A balanced approach is considered the optimum approach to take in ensuring for a development strategy that is both sustainable and deliverable. it is essential that the rural parts of the Districts and its constituent Core Villages and Hinterland Villages play a good part in the delivery of growth within the Districts.
Under this Option, we consider that Chelmondiston is a sustainable location for development, and as such, it should be the focus for further appropriate levels of growth within the context of the newly emerging Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 13135

Representation ID: 12710

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

Summary:

It should be noted that rural areas generally have less access to primary healthcare facilities, and capacity at those facilities is usually more constrained. Significant new dwellings should not be supported in rural areas unless appropriate mitigation for primary healthcare is implemented.

More details about Rep ID: 12710

Representation ID: 12330

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

Summary:

Option BH2 is considered to reflect the best option for the spatial distribution for housing across Babergh District Council. This option seeks to maintain a balance between growth in market towns as well as rural areas. Given that this has been the pattern of growth over recent years, we agree that this balanced approach would help to sustain the existing overall success of the district. We consider that an equal level of growth directed towards core villages and urban areas/market towns will ensure that rural communities will continue to be supported.

More details about Rep ID: 12330

Representation ID: 12227

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

Summary:

Option BH2 is considered to reflect the best option for the spatial distribution for housing across Babergh District Council. This option seeks to maintain a balance between growth in market towns as well as rural areas. Given that this has been the pattern of growth over recent years, we agree that this balanced approach would help to sustain the existing overall success of the district. We consider that an equal level of growth directed towards core villages and urban areas/market towns will ensure that rural communities will continue to be supported.

More details about Rep ID: 12227

Representation ID: 12194

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

Summary:

While it is considered that there is no truly 'best' option, as each option represents some form of compromise, we would support Option BHD2/MHD2 - 'market town/rural area balance' - since this option seeks an appropriate balance between urban and rural development and recognises that this pattern of growth has been consistent and successful in recent years. This option would see between 25 and 35% of the total housing requirement being met through site allocations in Core Villages, which we would suggest is both appropriate and sustainable. It would also help to sustain existing services and facilities in these villages.

More details about Rep ID: 12194

Representation ID: 10252

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Options BHD2 and MHD2 recognises the need to allow for a certain quantum of growth within the rural areas, we would raise concerns that there are only a few recognised Market Towns within the Districts, which could have implications of adopting this approach.

More details about Rep ID: 10252

Representation ID: 10156

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

We Support Option BHD2 as this provides for flexibility in the delivery of housing
across the District and will ensure that housing need in BMSDC is met as well as supporting the wider IHMA and key strategic centre of Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 10156

Representation ID: 8867

SUPPORT mr Gerald Gora

Summary:

The village I live in--Holbrook -has seen considerable growth in the past 40 years but that growth has resulted in improved facilities - a new larger supermarket, a sports centre and improvements to the schools. The playing field was provided following residential development.

To sustain and improve facilities the village should grow in line with growth of the Babergh district and I would support growth allowing this. This means I would support 25% to 35% of Babergh DC's growth being in rural areas and core villages

More details about Rep ID: 8867

Representation ID: 8696

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

[On behalf of Trinity College]
The NPPF stipulates that local planning authorities should plan positively for the supply of housing. In ensuring that the housing need of the District is met, this requires the spatial distribution of this housing to support the growing population as well as the economic aspirations of the District. We Support Option BHD2 as this provides for flexibility in the delivery of housing across the District and will ensure that housing need in BMSDC is met as well as supporting the wider IHMA and key strategic centre of Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 8696

Representation ID: 7719

OBJECT 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: 7719

Representation ID: 7462

SUPPORT Mr Watling Michael

Summary:

Would agree with the ratios

More details about Rep ID: 7462

Representation ID: 7392

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The accumulative impact on Ipswich Fringe areas is unacceptable. Smaller communities grow the same as anywhere else. They want homes for their children so they should accept the same responsibility for growth . One house in ten over 20 years isn't going to destroy a community and provides small scale building opportunities and local employment.
I think it is a failure that the Ipswich Fringe Forum has never consulted or cooperated with the Ipswich fringe villages which surely is an example of how secondary government has failed in its duty to cooperate at a lower level.

More details about Rep ID: 7392

Representation ID: 7345

SUPPORT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

Spreading development across the area is preferable as it allows families to remain in existing settlements and attracts newcomers to all settlements, rather than concentrating in one area. it also allows local communities to have better control over the development in their area rather than allow large developers build large scale, often inappropriate, housing.

More details about Rep ID: 7345

Representation ID: 6292

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

No Comment

More details about Rep ID: 6292

Representation ID: 5598

COMMENT Mr Simon Gibbs

Summary:

If done correctly this would be an option I could support

I feel with somewhere like Stowmarket the housing that has been built there has raised the town and it can support it self where as before people just went to ipswich or Bury.

Stowmarket I think has reached a maximum now though so you need to look to other areas

More details about Rep ID: 5598

Representation ID: 5594

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

Copdock & Washbrook village cannot accommodate a 15 to 25%+ increase in residential properties. 5% is more realistic.

More details about Rep ID: 5594

Representation ID: 5503

SUPPORT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

We agree as this gives best spread of growth and pressure on existing infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 5503

Representation ID: 4666

OBJECT Mrs Claire Osborne

Summary:

This pattern of growth is not sustainable. It simply results in extra traffic throughout the district due to people travelling longer distances to use facilities in towns and when travelling to work places.

To date the allocation of large sites to villages has resulted in excessive pressure on our core villages some of which are now resemble towns.

More details about Rep ID: 4666

Representation ID: 4319

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

This would be a disaster for our traditional villages already being destroyed by over development

More details about Rep ID: 4319

Representation ID: 3897

SUPPORT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

A better, more even spread of development, but still needs careful consideration of infrastructure needs.

More details about Rep ID: 3897

Representation ID: 3597

OBJECT Mr Simon Oldfield

Summary:

This would be a disaster for our traditional villages already being destroyed by over development. Urban areas should provide at least 70% of development, wherever possible on Brownfield sites

More details about Rep ID: 3597

Representation ID: 3135

COMMENT Iain Pocock

Summary:

Better option than BHD1 as limits gridlock for those trying to get into the towns and provides more opportunity for rural affordable housing closer to where people work and allows villages to change in a more sustainable way with lower impacts

More details about Rep ID: 3135

Representation ID: 2381

OBJECT Polstead Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Options BHD2 and BHD3 which place a greater proportion of the new housing in rural areas fails to recognise that many of these areas are presently unsustainable in development terms. For example, schools are already oversubscribed, public transport has been withdrawn and health services are stretched. Within the foreseeable future it is hard to see the investments in infrastructure being made to support additional large-scale developments in the rural parts of the District.

More details about Rep ID: 2381

Representation ID: 2040

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

I think Core Villages in rural areas with poor road access should be reduced to 20% maximum

More details about Rep ID: 2040

Representation ID: 267

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I agree

More details about Rep ID: 267

Representation ID: 174

OBJECT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Core villages should not be overdeveloped and thus the ratio should be 10 - 15%

More details about Rep ID: 174

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

Powered by OpusConsult