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 MHD4

Representation ID: 12925

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: 12925

Representation ID: 12715

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: 12715

Representation ID: 10259

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: 10259

Representation ID: 8804

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8804

Representation ID: 8527

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8527

Representation ID: 8188

OBJECT Mr C Partridge


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

More details about Rep ID: 8188

Representation ID: 7724

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: 7724

Representation ID: 7497

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7497

Representation ID: 7224

SUPPORT Mickfield Parish Council (Mike Heyhoe)


Within this option the emphasis should be on affordable/starter homes

More details about Rep ID: 7224

Representation ID: 6801

SUPPORT Mrs Gillian Macdowall


A planned new settlement makes a great deal of sense.

More details about Rep ID: 6801

Representation ID: 6675

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6675

Representation ID: 5605

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: 5605

Representation ID: 5489

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5489

Representation ID: 2893

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2893

Representation ID: 2087

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2087

Representation ID: 2047

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2047

Representation ID: 1649

SUPPORT Winston Parish Council (Mrs Lizzie Taurozevicius)


We agree.

More details about Rep ID: 1649

Representation ID: 1558

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 ?

More details about Rep ID: 1558

Representation ID: 1479

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1479

Representation ID: 1128

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1128

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

Powered by OpusConsult