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 MHD4
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
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.
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.
SUPPORT Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Andrew Hodgson) represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Andrew Hodgson)
Pegasus Group on behalf of a consortium of landowners are supporting the delivery of a new settlement in Mid Suffolk as the favoured spatial strategies which should be delivered alongside further growth at the larger market towns and sustainable rural settlements.
Mid Suffolk has consistently failed to meet housing delivery objectives and the delivery of a new settlement will help Mid Suffolk to achieve the housing delivery it is going to need to deliver during the plan period whilst protecting the rural villages from unsustainable growth and over development.
COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)
This option could be viabale but should be alongside the railway and a new rail station created.
OBJECT Mr C Partridge
I don't see this as a sensible or realistic option.
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.
SUPPORT Dr John Caesar
A new settlement policy allows proper planning from the outset for services, transport, infrastructure and sustainability, combined with less disruption for existing residents. Recent developments on the fringes of existing settlements tend not to be accompanied by adequate improvements to facilities (e.g. schools, doctors) and transport, and therefore place an unacceptable burden on existing residents. Cranbrook in East Devon is an example of a new town with new community facilities, district heating, new railway station, cycleways etc. Development around existing settlements should be more focused more upon local needs e.g. requirements for bungalows.
SUPPORT Mickfield Parish Council (Mike Heyhoe)
Within this option the emphasis should be on affordable/starter homes
SUPPORT Mrs Gillian Macdowall
A planned new settlement makes a great deal of sense.
SUPPORT Stuart Wells
Given that most of the development I've seen in the past has not been accompanied by any corresponding infrastructure growth or road improvement I would support this option as it builds in the absolute requirement for infrastructure. Clearly the location of any new town would need to be located on or close to major transport links.
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.
SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele
Significant numbers of new houses clearly require the infrastructure to support the residents (schools/doctors/roads etc). Assuming it is conditional that any such new settlements contain appropriate levels of planned new infrastructure then this approach seems most efficient and planned ( rather than sporadic development across a wider area where the infrastructure cannot always be expanded to accommodate)
Any such developments should contain the appropriate amount of employment opportunities.
SUPPORT Mr Graham Shorrock
I would support a new settlement, the overall requirements for Babergh, Ipswich, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Council must surely be best met by a completely new settlement. Infrastructure could be properly planned and implemented and the impact on existing settlements could be minimized by careful consideration of location.
SUPPORT Great Finborough Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)
We would opt for New Settlement and ensure it is located near existing "strong" transport links to minimise construction disruption and damage to the rural area and environment. use "brown field sites where ever possible.
SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie
I have been saying for YEARs we should all get together and promote a Settlement or garden Town. Put all infrastructure in roads, schools, drs. Schools the lot.
Let the villages grow organically.
SUPPORT Winston Parish Council (Mrs Lizzie Taurozevicius)
COMMENT Mr. A. Breen
I do not think that this is an option for either Babergh or Mid Suffolk as there would be the need to create a significant infrastructure for such development also Suffolk like the neighbouring county of Norfolk has hundreds of relatively small parishes. Such a proposal might suit one of the Breckland parishes as they are much larger and less populated. Not all 'New Towns' were as successful as Welwyn Garden city. Who would be attracted to live in such a new town ?
OBJECT Barton Willmore Planning P'ship (Mr. Paul Foster)
We do not support the need for a new settlement in the district. In our experience, timeframes given at the outset are overly optimistic, and they often take significant time to get started. This derives from land agreements/equalisation agreements etc, as well as the need for significant upfront infrastructure including roads, schools etc. In Babergh/Mid-Suffolk, it would make significantly more sense for the housing to be delivered through existing settlements, which will bring development forward much earlier and assist in meeting the historical shortfall of supply. The Ipswich Fringe Area is the most sustainable location for this.
SUPPORT Simon Bell
If a site for an entirely new settlement could be identified within the District, this should be supported, provided the required infrastructure is put in place. This option retains the largest amount of existing development in rural areas and slows fringe growth in existing main urban areas and Ipswich.
However, it is important to balance this option with the requirement to retain a significant amount of agricultural land within the district as one of the significant drivers for growth is likely to be derived from the high quality agricultural land that exists in the area.