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 MHD3
COMMENT NHS England - Midlands and East (East) (Ms Kerry Harding)
Summary:
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)
Summary:
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 Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)
Summary:
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 Bramford Parish Council (Mr Gareth Key)
Summary:
We support the overall pattern of growth Option MHD3 - transport corridor focussed.
SUPPORT Cllr John Field
Summary:
This option reflects recent growth patterns while limiting development in the congested Ipswich fringe area. It reflects modern lifestyle choices and employment patterns. Additional development in Core Villages outside the Ipswich Fringe and in the Market Towns will enhance their prosperity and accommodate a higher quality of life than the County Town focus option.
SUPPORT John Tuppen
Summary:
Given Hobson's choice this is probably the best balance for all concerned.
OBJECT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)
Summary:
We do not support this option
OBJECT Mr John Christie
Summary:
My comments in SET2 apply. Specifically in this case, the points system takes no account of the traffic pressures on core village such as Woolpit nor the fact that the local general store and post office cannot cope. Being adjacent to a major route will not affect the amount of trade done locally. Core villages should be specified as those which can cope with expansion rather than those which have sufficient services for their present needs.
OBJECT Mrs Stacey Achour
Summary:
A valid way to consider new housing if there was serious thought and monies being given by the highways agency to improve infrastructure such as the A12/A14 Copdock interchange, no housing for areas surrounding this which would only exacerbate the problem. Just because these major routes are close doesn't mean they have capacity for extra traffic.
COMMENT Mr Richard Howard
Summary:
Creating well planned, self sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identifies is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities.
OBJECT Mr Richard Howard
Summary:
The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites .
COMMENT Mr Terry Corner
Summary:
Would accept option 3 as a fall back to Option 4, the new settlement.
The least connection with Ipswich the better. Moved to a rural environment to avoid urban.
Also a question of political belief. Ipswich supports one party the country side another
SUPPORT Mr Albert Horn
Summary:
I support the overall pattern of growth Option MHD3 - transport corridor focussed.
If we look at where houses are already being built as an indicator of where people moving to the area want to live, this would favour a transport corridor based approach. People are happy to live that bit further out of town as it can be quicker to access Ipswich along the dual carriageways rather than local roads, even though the actual distance covered is greater.
OBJECT Barton Willmore Planning P'ship (Mr. Paul Foster)
Summary:
There should be a greater focus upon directly development in the Ipswich Fringe Area.
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.
SUPPORT Simon Bell
Summary:
Transport corridors provide the key to sustainable development ensuring that commuters can access employment easily and residents the services they need.
However, it is essential this option is conditional on the infrastructure improvements being put in place along key road and rail routes. With appropriately planned infrastructure improvements, housing site allocation would follow when the location of improved routes is understood.
Having trouble using the system? Visit our 