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 MHD2
COMMENT NHS England - Midlands and East (East) (Ms Kerry Harding)
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.
SUPPORT The Greenwich Hospital represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr Paul Sutton)
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.
COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)
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.
COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)
MHD 2 market town/rural area balance. Some rural growth is desirable to sustain or improve existing community infrastructure.
COMMENT Mrs Jessica Fleming
Support this option with with caveat that a greater proportion of development be allowed for hamlets and countryside development, this could offer opportunities for larger contributions to housing in a rural setting while allowing people more flexibility in where they chose to live.
COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)
Of the options on offer this is the best.
New development and housing should be distributed across the district.
OBJECT Mx Miles Row
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.
OBJECT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele
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.
COMMENT Mrs Ann Hurst
It is difficult to understand this when some areas are falling into more than 1 category
SUPPORT Woodbridge Properties Ltd represented by Shallish Associated Limited (Mr A Shallish)
MHD2 -Market town/rural area balance is supported as it acknowledges the essentially rural nature of Mid Suffolk and the importance of sustaining rural communities by allowing them to develop. This should help to ensure a sustainable rural community/economy.
SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)
A fairer distribution of housing growth across the District.
SUPPORT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)
OBJECT Barton Willmore Planning P'ship (Mr. Paul Foster)
The Mid Suffolk market town/rural area creates an imbalance, with significant levels of development in core villages and hinterlands. This is moving populations to more unsustainable locations, given these settlements are further down the settlement hierarchy. There should be a greater focus upon directing development in the Ipswich Fringe Area, considered top of the settlement hierarchy, and then development levels should proportionately filter down the hierarchy. The policy does not differentiate between Ipswich Fringe and Urban Areas in terms of provision, which suggests the hierarchy is unnecessary.