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 BHD4

Representation ID: 12923

SUPPORT Dr Jonathan Tuppen


On the face of it appears radical but perhaps not so when the West Tey development is considered.
A new Garden town/village located where it might also bring better infrastructure to an area could be a benefit to the district....somewhere near Sudbury would work well with West Tey for rail links and bringing better services into the middle of Babergh.
Near Gt Blakenham... potential advantage of a new rail station and access to the A14 and
...between Belstead and Bentley and between A12 and Mainline Railway could provide a new railway station with adequate parking to serve Ipswich and Babergh

More details about Rep ID: 12923

Representation ID: 12714

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


The option would seem to provide a fair share allocation of growth with suggested numbers that could be accommodated, in the main, with investment in to existing health infrastructure and enabling funds to help shape new models of care.
The majority of growth within a new settlement may provide the opportunity for delivery of new purpose built infrastructure, for a much wider community than that in which it may be provided. The support of such an option would very much depend on the location of a proposed new settlement and its proximity to existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12714

Representation ID: 11761

COMMENT Councillor Frank Lawrenson


There is not enough information in this document to assess the idea of a new settlement. However, I would propose that Babergh moves forward to carry out an assessment of where a new settlement could be created near the A14 and A12 corridors.

More details about Rep ID: 11761

Representation ID: 10687

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


The New Settlement Focussed option would be disastrous for the Rural Areas.
Only 25% of housing would be allocated to Core Villages, Hinterland Villages and Hamlets, whereas historically it has been 60% in Babergh. It is important to maintain facilities, services and social vitality in rural areas, recognising housing supply and affordability issues. The option fails in these respects.

More details about Rep ID: 10687

Representation ID: 10258

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)


we would raise concerns of the ability of new settlements, as set out in options BHD4 and MHD4, to deliver a significant proportion of the districts' growths during the emerging Local Plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 10258

Representation ID: 9788

COMMENT Mr Colin Johnston


People are also warmer to the establishment of an entirely new settlement (as long as it's not near them) because infrastructure and services will be planned in and , as it is new, everything should be fit for purpose.

More details about Rep ID: 9788

Representation ID: 9297

SUPPORT Mr J Bradford


BHD4 - Support
This option would have less harmful impact on existing settlements and their infrastructure. Any new settlement could be planned to be more suitable for 21st century requirements. The existing settlements could then have smaller but more suitable growth. As stated in the heading this could bring in enhanced government investment funds.

More details about Rep ID: 9297

Representation ID: 8820

SUPPORT Mr John Bangs


A planners dream ! Every opportunity to create more housing without upsetting and spoiling so many existing settlements as with the other Options, but not an easy task, it will take strong leadership and drive to pull it off, I'll look forward to a Babergh Utopia

More details about Rep ID: 8820

Representation ID: 8341

COMMENT Mr C Partridge


I don't see this as a sensible or realistic option in Suffolk

More details about Rep ID: 8341

Representation ID: 8013

SUPPORT Mrs Sarah Knibbs


I support this option. We should not be drowning our historic villages with disproportionate developments.
Nor should we be overburdening County towns and the transport links into them.
Current road systems will not be able to sustain increased traffic, nor can the historic layouts of our towns.
BDC and MSDC could be working in concert with other bodies, including SCC and Highways to create well designed and connected new settlements that are truly fit for purpose in our 21st century world.

More details about Rep ID: 8013

Representation ID: 7723

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7723

Representation ID: 7470

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell


Maybe, Perhaps, but it will upset someone.

More details about Rep ID: 7470

Representation ID: 7351

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies


The Council has a opportunity to think creatively about the JLP. Simply continuing the urban sprawl, and relying on shoring up already overstretched local services in the hope that they can cope with increased demands lacks imagination. The creation of a new purpose built settlement or settlements, carefully planned with adequate and modern services and infrastructure, allows that community to establish its own unique identity rather than adopting someone else's, adding to diversity of the District's communities. It will help to preserve the attractiveness & uniqueness of Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 7351

Representation ID: 7238

SUPPORT Andrew Butters


This would be the best option, as it would mean that the necessary new infrastructure and services would definitely get provided too.

More details about Rep ID: 7238

Representation ID: 6294

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)


No comment

More details about Rep ID: 6294

Representation ID: 5603

SUPPORT Mr Graham Moxon


This is a much more sensible and realistic approach, the impact on existing settlements is lower and new settlements will require new infrastructure to be developed that would otherwise be conveniently forgotten.

More details about Rep ID: 5603

Representation ID: 5582

SUPPORT Mr Simon Gibbs


I feel if placed in the right location this would be the best solution on offer

You can build the infrastructure required rather than alter the current

More details about Rep ID: 5582

Representation ID: 5511

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)


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

More details about Rep ID: 5511

Representation ID: 4727

SUPPORT Mrs Claire Osborne


As long as sufficient facilities and workplaces exist close to a new settlement, then I have no object to new settlements. They must be carefully placed and not impact on the local environment or heritage.

More details about Rep ID: 4727

Representation ID: 4605

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)


Support. See answer to Q13

More details about Rep ID: 4605

Representation ID: 4360

SUPPORT Mrs Stacey Achour


best option. This doesn't overwhelm villages and their local services.
not sensible to plan around the A12/A14 unless major changes to road infrastructure are planned alongside this.

More details about Rep ID: 4360

Representation ID: 3959

SUPPORT Mr Adrian Hutchings


This option matches national planning policy to encourage Councils to promote growth through the planning of new settlements. A new site that could create a garden village with full amenities is better than tacking on significant developments to villages that have inadequate services and traffic infrastructure appears to be taking an easy option, creating problems for the future and missing the opportunity to create sustainable environments for the future.

More details about Rep ID: 3959

Representation ID: 3910

SUPPORT Mr John Bellwood


Best option by far, a chance for BDC to create a lasting legacy for the benefit of the community.
Downside is that a) it needs visionaries to implement, b) will be seen as adversarial depending on location

If between Ipswich and Colchester and would draw off many London commuters living in villages/Ipswich creating capacity for those working more locally

More details about Rep ID: 3910

Representation ID: 3619

OBJECT Mr Simon Oldfield


New settlements by their very nature are mostly built on Greenfield sites - seldom on Brownfield. We must not put our predominantly agricultural Greenfield sites under concrete for two key reasons: 1)There is a worsening world food shortage. If we build on arable land we'll end up with nothing to eat 2) After Brexit the economic need to grow more of our own food will make the availability of good arable land a vital part of the UK's future prosperity. Any necessary development should be in urban areas and preferably on Brownfield sites

More details about Rep ID: 3619

Representation ID: 3325

COMMENT Mrs Deborah Merry


A new Garden Settlement would be preferable to the upheaval and over load of already established villages that can not cope with the amount of traffic already in exsitence.

More details about Rep ID: 3325

Representation ID: 3134

SUPPORT Iain Pocock


Best option - plase between Ipswich and Colchester and would draw off many London commuters living in villages/Ipswich creating capacity for those working more locally

More details about Rep ID: 3134

Representation ID: 2531

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner


First choice. Lowest percentage connection with Ipswich. New settlement an opportunity to plan infrastructure in advance.

Begs the question where? All of us will say not in my back yard. Suggest between Belstead and London Road/ A12 interchange incorporating ancient woodland in the community.
Second choice which might not be enough land. East of London road, Copdock and west of A12. South of Mill Lane, Gladwells Mill to London Road/A12 interchange

More details about Rep ID: 2531

Representation ID: 2046

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie


I have been saying for YEARS we should collectively get together in Suffolk and promote a new settlement. It would stop wasting time and effort for developers and planners alike! Let villages grow organically but put significant housing in a new town or Garden Town with PROPER infrastructure to include roads, schools, Drs, Shops everything.

More details about Rep ID: 2046

Representation ID: 1342

SUPPORT Mrs helen fawthrop


I support this option. There is nothing wrong with Milton Keynes. We really shouldn't be overwhelming historic villages; this is not in keeping. Nor should we be overburdening County towns and the transport links into them. It isn't working as it is and the towns are already overwhelmed; their layout does not allow for sustainable growth without bulldozing half the town centres. We need a more overarching plan with SCC and Transport. Let's make new towns rather than ruin what we have

More details about Rep ID: 1342

Representation ID: 176



Development of new towns or villages would enable development to be kept out of historic villages.

More details about Rep ID: 176

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

Powered by OpusConsult