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 BHD3

Representation ID: 12712

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


New dwellings located close to effective transport links is positive for primary care, as it aids access to healthcare facilities. Suitable mitigation will be sought to increase primary care capacity in the growth areas.

More details about Rep ID: 12712

Representation ID: 11923

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


Reviewing the four options put forward by the Councils, it is considered that the same option is not appropriate for both of the authorities given their different characteristics and profile as outlined at the beginning of the consultation document. Therefore, whilst considering that the transport corridor focussed Options MHD3 and BHD3 are broadly the most acceptable for both Mid Suffolk and Babergh Councils, Pigeon has set out a hybrid version of each policy.

More details about Rep ID: 11923

Representation ID: 11414

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)


BDH3 has some merit as a concept, but it needs to recognise the severe congestion problems apparent at locations such as the A12/A14 junction at Copdock. It also underplays the role of Ipswich Fringe at 25%, with too much development directed to the villages (40%). A further iteration of this option may be worthy of further consideration with an increased percentage directed to the Ipswich Fringe and a reduced percentage to the Villages.

More details about Rep ID: 11414

Representation ID: 10686

OBJECT Thorcross Builders Limited (A. Goodwin) represented by Springfields Planning and Development Limited (Mr Chris Loon)


This option lacks clarity and would conflict with the purposes of the proposed settlement hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 10686

Representation ID: 10255

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)


In respect of Options BHD3 and MHD3, we would draw attention to the small number of transport corridors in the Districts, which would mainly only comprise of the A14 and some parts of the A12. We consider that adopting this approach would be too restrictive and overlooks the benefits of railway stations and public transport links, which can make development in more remote locations sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 10255

Representation ID: 8186

SUPPORT Mr C Partridge


It seems a sensible approach to use the road and communication infrastructure as a lead to the implementation of new building and growth across the districts.

More details about Rep ID: 8186

Representation ID: 7717

SUPPORT 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.

More details about Rep ID: 7717

Representation ID: 7439

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell


Not so simple unless traffic and access onto main routes is resolved.

More details about Rep ID: 7439

Representation ID: 6371

OBJECT Mr Andrew Sterling


For the sake of air quality, social cohesion and ecological sustainability, development increasingly must be based on Community ie local facilities and economies so that sustainable means of transport is encouraged - cycling, walking, public transport and car sharing for localised journeys.

Focusing development on trunk roads will encourage ever greater vehicle use for ever longer journeys, and endlessly create subsequent demand for development to cope with it. It couldn't be more wrong-headed, short termist, and lacking in the kind of vision needed for a really sustainable ecological and socially stable future.

More details about Rep ID: 6371

Representation ID: 6369

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)


There is a difficulty with option 3 as there is no actual identification of the 'transport corridor communities', and it would only work if there is an integrated public transport network - ie buses which connect with trains and trains that enable people to get to market towns for work/school etc - which we don't currently get.
The definition of 'transport corridors' should include A140 and the rail service to Diss, which should be improved with loops and 2 halts reinstated at Finningham and Mellis.

More details about Rep ID: 6369

Representation ID: 6293

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)


no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6293

Representation ID: 5597

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon


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

More details about Rep ID: 5597

Representation ID: 5559

OBJECT Mr Simon Gibbs


The Infrastructure isn't there and it would need to be improved before any more development could be considered sensible.

It would put an unbalanced amount of development into the areas near the main roads to the detriment of rural areas

Suffolk and what attracts people to it is not in this plan

More details about Rep ID: 5559

Representation ID: 5506

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)


We disagree.

More details about Rep ID: 5506

Representation ID: 5480

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele


Linking to key transport is logical if that also means employment opportunities however the A14/A12 etc are already congested and rail services are under invested in and not able to absorb ever increasing passenger numbers.

More details about Rep ID: 5480

Representation ID: 4707

OBJECT Mrs Claire Osborne


This pattern of development will increase traffic congestion across the county. All main routes are already very busy and this pattern of development simply encourages people to drive further to work places and facilities in towns.

More details about Rep ID: 4707

Representation ID: 3901

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood


Great idea if the transport corridor could cope with new development.

It is clear to all that it cannot, so why this is even considered as an option is beyond me.

More details about Rep ID: 3901

Representation ID: 3598

OBJECT Mr Simon Oldfield


This would be a disaster for our traditional villages already being destroyed by over-development. At least 70% of development should be in urban areas and preferably on Brownfield sites

More details about Rep ID: 3598

Representation ID: 3333

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Podd


For clarification, the last sentence should be amended to refer only to the A12 and A14 (as well as rail)

More details about Rep ID: 3333

Representation ID: 3322

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Merry


Whilst Copdock and Washbrook are in close proximity to both the A12 and the A14, the congestion is always bad. The villages are use as rat runs and on a very regular basis there is congestion at Swan Hill.
There is no future planning for any improvement to either A roads so placing more buildings and people will only increase the already overloaded road network.

More details about Rep ID: 3322

Representation ID: 3136

COMMENT Iain Pocock


Better to create a new community (option 4) with new access as much of the existing access is restricted or already a bottleneck

More details about Rep ID: 3136

Representation ID: 3128

SUPPORT Mr Adrian Ward


This is a much more sustainable balance of new development

More details about Rep ID: 3128

Representation ID: 2382

OBJECT Polstead Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)


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: 2382

Representation ID: 2045

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie


people need easy access to major roads and trains

More details about Rep ID: 2045

Representation ID: 1557

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen


Show how a concentration of housing along these corridors has brought benefits to the communities along their routes.

More details about Rep ID: 1557

Representation ID: 268

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett


I agree

More details about Rep ID: 268

Representation ID: 175

OBJECT Mr D C Warren


Most villages cannot support an increase in development due to their historic nature and layout.

More details about Rep ID: 175

Representation ID: 44

COMMENT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite


Certain areas suffer bottlenecks of people trying to access the main routes. These bottlenecks could be sorted out relatively easily.
Ones that cause particular problems for local people are the roundabout near the Beagle PH with tail backs for miles in the morning due to traffic from A12 using Washbrook as rat run, and Sproughton which needs dedicated off road parking for residents.

More details about Rep ID: 44

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

Powered by OpusConsult