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 HM2

Representation ID: 13163

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Consider it to be unrealistic. The provision of such dwellings should only be located in areas where there is a demand. We do not consider that the Councils should adopt a policy that requires all developments to provide a provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings as this is overly restrictive.

More details about Rep ID: 13163

Representation ID: 12918

SUPPORT Suffolk County Council (Mr. Robert Feakes)

Summary:

The council agrees with the preference of policy HM2 and HM3 and welcomes the recognition that more accessible homes, nursing homes and specialist housing will be required.
The Council would be pleased to work with the District Councils to develop evidence to underpin a policy for more accessible homes.
A wider policy context should also considers spatial issues - particularly access to services for an ageing population - and design requirements for the wider built environment.
Policy could include a percentage of homes to be built to standards allowing wheelchair accessibility.
The Council would welcome inclusion of dementia friendly design.

More details about Rep ID: 12918

Representation ID: 12847

OBJECT Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (Ms Laura Townes)

Summary:

Option HM2, which sets a requirement to provide a proportion of adaptable buildings and bungalows on all sites, is not supported.

More details about Rep ID: 12847

Representation ID: 12803

COMMENT East Bergholt Parish Council (Valerie Ayton)

Summary:

Page 32 option HM2 which the Councils prefer (page 38) removes Permitted Development Rights for bungalows in perpetuity. This is an interesting about turn. At the Planning Committee in August 2017 (when this consultation document was issued) BDC dismissed the idea re the Gatton Field development saying removing the right to build into the roof spaces in these houses was not enforceable. Also it is not clear whether this would apply to all bungalows standing today or just new ones - as we have many in EB and may get more this is pertinent. EBPC support this proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 12803

Representation ID: 12589

SUPPORT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments are becoming a necessity.

More details about Rep ID: 12589

Representation ID: 12476

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)

Summary:

We consider that Option HM2, which refers to the provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings is unrealistic. The provision of such dwellings should only be located in areas where there is a demand. We do not consider that the Councils should adopt a policy that requires all developments to include provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings as this is overly restrictive.

More details about Rep ID: 12476

Representation ID: 12320

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

We consider that Option HM2, which refers to the provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings is unrealistic. The provision of such dwellings should only be located in areas where there is a demand. We do not consider that the Councils should adopt a policy that requires all developments to provide a provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings as this is overly restrictive.

More details about Rep ID: 12320

Representation ID: 11766

SUPPORT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

I support Babergh's recommendations on policies HM2 and HM3, which I have advocated from the early stages.

More details about Rep ID: 11766

Representation ID: 11679

SUPPORT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

I support options HM2 and HM3.

More details about Rep ID: 11679

Representation ID: 11546

SUPPORT Annette Powell

Summary:

* Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments are becoming a necessity.

* Housing mix should consider need not greatest developers profits.

More details about Rep ID: 11546

Representation ID: 11331

SUPPORT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* The requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments should be observed.

More details about Rep ID: 11331

Representation ID: 11197

COMMENT Mr Nigel Roberts

Summary:

Removing Permitted Development rights for bungalows in perpetuity is an interesting about turn. In August 2017 BDC dismissed the idea re the Gatton Field development in East Bergholt saying removing the right to build into the roof spaces in the proposed bungalows was not enforceable. Now they want it as a policy!! Also it is not clear whether this policy option would apply to all bungalows standing today or just new ones - as we have many in East Bergholt and may get more, this is pertinent. The policy option HM2 though is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 11197

Representation ID: 10849

SUPPORT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments are becoming a necessity.

More details about Rep ID: 10849

Representation ID: 10510

SUPPORT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* The requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments should be observed.

More details about Rep ID: 10510

Representation ID: 10420

SUPPORT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* The requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments should be observed.

More details about Rep ID: 10420

Representation ID: 10264

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We consider that Option HM2, which refers to the provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings is unrealistic. The provision of such dwellings should only be located in areas where there is a demand. We do not consider that the Councils should adopt a policy that requires all developments to provide a provision of accessible and adaptable dwellings as this is overly restrictive.

More details about Rep ID: 10264

Representation ID: 9991

SUPPORT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* The requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments should be observed.

More details about Rep ID: 9991

Representation ID: 9827

SUPPORT Earl Stonham Parish Council (Mrs Jennie Blackburn)

Summary:

the Parish Council strongly supports Options HM2 and HM3, for the reasons given by the Councils in the Document. The proportion of accessible and adaptable and wheelchair accessible dwellings should be set as high as possible, not only because of the aging population but also because most households at some time will have to accommodate occupiers or visitors with mobility issues, either through long term or short-term disability.

More details about Rep ID: 9827

Representation ID: 9644

SUPPORT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments are becoming a necessity.
I support policies that increase the provision of Bungalows and Accessible housing
A factor apparently ignored is that we are living longer, and the number of retired people selling high value houses in city areas migrating to the area. The aging population is looking for bungalows but they will also need more care so there will be a need to increase health and care infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 9644

Representation ID: 9506

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

HM2 sound ideal but not all older persons need a bungalow. Proper "homes for life" where they can be utilised by both young and old, would reduce the land requirement and make usage more flexible in a changing world. (Besides bungalows as far from village facilities as possible as in EB144 is hardly a constructive approach

More details about Rep ID: 9506

Representation ID: 9335

SUPPORT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports Policy Option HM2 - Requirement for Specific Dwelling Type. This allows a proportion of accessible and adaptable dwellings on sites over 10 dwellings as well as a proportion of bungalows on sites over 10 dwellings, remaining as in perpetuity through removal of Permitted Development rights.

Our local aging demographic would be well served by these options.

More details about Rep ID: 9335

Representation ID: 9194

SUPPORT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments are becoming a necessity.

A factor apparently ignored is that we are living longer, and the number of retired people selling high value houses in city areas migrating to the area. The ageing population is looking for bungalows but they will also need more care so there will be a need to increase health and care infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 9194

Representation ID: 8969

SUPPORT Mrs Jessica Fleming

Summary:

This aspect should Not be left entirely up to current market conditions, local need repeatedly indicates more affordable and lower cost housing to accommodate young people and families and bungalows to accommodate older residents

More details about Rep ID: 8969

Representation ID: 8886

SUPPORT mr Gerald Gora

Summary:

Evidence would suggest a higher percentage of older people in the plan period and for that reason I think it is necessary to ensure sites have enough single storey properties

More details about Rep ID: 8886

Representation ID: 8755

SUPPORT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

support this approach which is justified according to evident housing needs and gives a better steer towards landowners and developers as to what will be considered an appropriate housing mix. The SHMAA evidence underpins this approach anyway.

More details about Rep ID: 8755

Representation ID: 8548

SUPPORT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

Very much needed

More details about Rep ID: 8548

Representation ID: 8543

SUPPORT Woolpit Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

There needs to be a greater emphasis and requirement for older residents' properties in the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 8543

Representation ID: 8481

SUPPORT Mr. Derrick Haley

Summary:

this has to be the right option along with option 3

More details about Rep ID: 8481

Representation ID: 8203

COMMENT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

I support HM2a it is a good idea for homes to be accessible and adaptable. I am not sure it is a good idea that bungalows must form part of larger developments as they may not be appropriate to the location. They should be a consideration but not a requirement.

More details about Rep ID: 8203

Representation ID: 7833

SUPPORT mr michael hammond

Summary:

Essential , otherwise local housing need for affordable homes even less likely to be met .

More details about Rep ID: 7833

Representation ID: 7726

SUPPORT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

It would meet needs of people staying independent.

More details about Rep ID: 7726

Representation ID: 7569

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The concept of a need for bungalows for retirement and disabled occupants is absolutely a good idea. As for what proportion is another matter as no proportion is given but it should equate to the projected increase over and above the proportion of affordable housing needed.

More details about Rep ID: 7569

Representation ID: 7502

SUPPORT Dr John Caesar

Summary:

Agree that local needs should be considered when dwelling types are being allocated. Too often developers will push for a higher number of more profitable housing types. Many places have more demand for bungalows than availability.

More details about Rep ID: 7502

Representation ID: 7395

SUPPORT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 7395

Representation ID: 7294

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

I would favour a proportion of bungalows being built on sites over 10 dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 7294

Representation ID: 7130

SUPPORT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

Why do I need to enter text when I am supporting the option? Who designed this system?

More details about Rep ID: 7130

Representation ID: 6381

SUPPORT Friends Of The Earth (Mr. John Matthissen)

Summary:

See full submission on Housing Types etc

More details about Rep ID: 6381

Representation ID: 6308

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

No comment

More details about Rep ID: 6308

Representation ID: 6050

SUPPORT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments are becoming a necessity.

* We support policies that increase the provision of Bungalows and Accessible housing
* A factor apparently ignored is that we are living longer, and the number of retired people selling high value houses in city areas migrating to the area. The aging population is looking for bungalows but they will also need more care so there will be a need to increase health and care infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 6050

Representation ID: 5999

OBJECT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

Whilst (a) may be justified we do not see that focussing on bungalows on all sites is wise or necessary. Bungalows are inherently land-hungry. They may be acceptable in some sites but they are difficult to accommodate in an urban or market town setting. We are not aware of clear evidence that shows they are needed.

More details about Rep ID: 5999

Representation ID: 5631

SUPPORT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

This approach would potentially provide a sensible mix of accommodation for people of different ages and needs potentially resulting in a more supportive community.

More details about Rep ID: 5631

Representation ID: 5561

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

Support the concept of providing a mix of housing however it is our observation that multiple small applications accumulate in large numbers of large executive homes (max profit) rather than a mix to meet the actual local need.

More details about Rep ID: 5561

Representation ID: 5520

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Agree.

More details about Rep ID: 5520

Representation ID: 4606

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 4606

Representation ID: 4330

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10 + developments are becoming a necessity. Self Builds support local economy and rural outlook so should be encouraged.
Affordable & starter homes to help support local community

More details about Rep ID: 4330

Representation ID: 4241

SUPPORT Mr Jeremy Doncaster

Summary:

I support for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10+ developments are becoming a necessity. This provision makes available larger properties for larger families not necessarily near the new development. Self builds should be encouraged this supports the community trade, with local builders rather than larger developers looking to maximise profit, local trade do deliver quality builds that could enhance the character of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 4241

Representation ID: 4169

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

should be subject to the level of social housing/obungalows being set above 5 dwellings and not 10 dwellings proposed.

More details about Rep ID: 4169

Representation ID: 3992

SUPPORT Sudbury Town Council (Mrs Jacqueline Howells)

Summary:

Sudbury Town Council supports HM2 as it takes into account future demographics of the area.

More details about Rep ID: 3992

Representation ID: 3934

SUPPORT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

The concept of a need for bungalows for retirement and disabled occupants is absolutely a good idea. As for what proportion is another matter as no proportion is given but it should equate to the projected increase over and above the proportion of affordable housing needed.

More details about Rep ID: 3934

Representation ID: 3927

OBJECT Mr Derek Fisher

Summary:

Norton - the housing mix should make provision for both some starter homes and also accommodation/sheltered housing for the increasing population of elderly retired.

More details about Rep ID: 3927

Representation ID: 3601

SUPPORT Mr Simon Oldfield

Summary:

With our population demographic becoming progressively older there is a definite need for suitable homes. Developers need to be forced to provide it - they won't do so otherwise

More details about Rep ID: 3601

Representation ID: 3567

COMMENT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Provisions for Affordable homes should also consider Starter homes which are more appropriate to support growth and local community .
Housing mix should consider need not greatest developers profit.

More details about Rep ID: 3567

Representation ID: 3563

COMMENT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Requirements for provision of accessible homes and bungalows on 10 + developments are becoming a necessity.
Self Builds support local economy and rural outlook so should be encouraged.

More details about Rep ID: 3563

Representation ID: 3324

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Podd

Summary:

Although I strongly support the policy, I object that the policy does not make specific reference to wheelchair accessible dwellings. The proportion of accessible/adaptable and wheelchair dwellings should be set as high as possible in the Adopted Plan, not only to cater for an increasingly elderly population, but also because most households at sometime will have to accommodate occupiers or visitors with mobility issues.

More details about Rep ID: 3324

Representation ID: 3064

SUPPORT Mrs Ann Reeve

Summary:

If suitable property, ie with a ground floor bedroom and bathroom facilities ( others bedrooms upstairs- chalet style) and adequate space for movement of a wheelchair, were built for people to move to in their 50s/60s that would enable them to remain there into their later years and increase the time which the elderly can live independantly. This would release many larger family homes onto the market and reduce the need to build them. Developers should be made to provide this type of property in any development of more than 5 dwellings. It is future proofing our housing stock.

More details about Rep ID: 3064

Representation ID: 3032

COMMENT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

Planning for the elderly needs to be separated.

Planning should be for over 65's; over 75's; over 85's & over 95's. These groups broadly have different needs.

A good number of bungalows should be included - they might persuade people in larger houses to downsize making room for younger families.

Plus appropriate sheltered accommodation flats for over 85's and over 95's

More details about Rep ID: 3032

Representation ID: 2970

SUPPORT Cllr Diana Kearsley

Summary:

Whatever the housing requirement - the lack of health care centres in Mid Suffolk needs to be part of any JLP

More details about Rep ID: 2970

Representation ID: 2945

SUPPORT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

Surveys in Wortham & Burgate proved the need for smaller , low cost, starter homes and affordable houses.
We support the idea that bungalows and smaller housing units remain as such in perpetuity through the removal of Permitted Development.

More details about Rep ID: 2945

Representation ID: 2877

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2877

Representation ID: 2532

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

Sensible

More details about Rep ID: 2532

Representation ID: 2215

SUPPORT Mrs Fiona Loader

Summary:

I agree there should be a mix of dwelling types that isn't just driven by the market in order to provide affordable and adaptable housing

More details about Rep ID: 2215

Representation ID: 2049

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

Not sure PD rights can be removed. I tried it before!

More details about Rep ID: 2049

Representation ID: 1722

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

Bungalows are only a matter of choice not a requirement. If houses were built either with lifts or stairs that can be readily adapted for stair lifts then bungalows are not required. There is a requirement to build some houses for the specific needs of certain disabilities and that is another matter.

More details about Rep ID: 1722

Representation ID: 1701

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

This is the option which best fits the results from our recent housing needs survey

More details about Rep ID: 1701

Representation ID: 1663

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council supports this option

More details about Rep ID: 1663

Representation ID: 1253

SUPPORT mr chris g

Summary:

I support options HM2 and HM3
Surveys recently carried out in Wortham and Burgate have proved that there is a need for smaller, low cost, starter homes, and for affordable housing.
I also strongly support the idea that bungalows and smaller housing units should remain as such in perpetuity through the removal of Permitted Development Rights.

More details about Rep ID: 1253

Representation ID: 1236

SUPPORT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

This option is relevant, based on the conclusions of the SHMA, but it would only make sense for this kind of development to take place in locations which have local amenities and where there are adequate pavements to enable safe access to those amenities.

More details about Rep ID: 1236

Representation ID: 1161

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

If all sites with 10 houses have to have a proportion of bungalows this would result in too many and would increase the cost of all other housing due to the inefficient use of land space.
A better approach would be to ensure that all housing supported older residents or could be converted to support older residents.

More details about Rep ID: 1161

Representation ID: 848

SUPPORT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

Please ensure all specialist housing needs are built into housing developments, otherwise later they will end up being located ad hoc, by infilling land that would be suited to other uses (particularly biodiversity or open space).

More details about Rep ID: 848

Representation ID: 621

SUPPORT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC supports this in principle but considers it should be subject to the level of social housing/obungalows being set above 5 dwellings and not 10 dwellings proposed.

More details about Rep ID: 621

Representation ID: 181

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

More consideration should be given to building life-time houses which will meet future needs taking into account that as old age approaches it is preferable to stay in your own home rather than a residential or nursing home.

More details about Rep ID: 181

Representation ID: 78

SUPPORT J. E. Knock & Partners (Mr. Chris Knock)

Summary:

Support HM2 to prevent developers from just building large expensive properties

More details about Rep ID: 78

Representation ID: 45

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

Housing types need to be matched to the local supporting infrastructure. Building homes for those without access to private transport in areas where public transport is being run down or is absent is pointless for all concerned. The council need to either support good public transport for all or concentrate housing in a way that matches residents need to access services with their ability to get to these services.

More details about Rep ID: 45

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

Powered by OpusConsult