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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OBJECT Mr Peter Powell
Not so simple unless traffic and access onto main routes is resolved.
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.
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.
COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)
OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon
Copdock & Washbrook village cannot accommodate a 25%+ increase in residential properties. 5% is more realistic.
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
COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)
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.
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.
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.
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
OBJECT Mrs Margaret Podd
For clarification, the last sentence should be amended to refer only to the A12 and A14 (as well as rail)
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.
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
SUPPORT Mr Adrian Ward
This is a much more sustainable balance of new development
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.
SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie
people need easy access to major roads and trains
OBJECT Mr. A. Breen
Show how a concentration of housing along these corridors has brought benefits to the communities along their routes.
OBJECT Mr D C Warren
Most villages cannot support an increase in development due to their historic nature and layout.
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.