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 RE1

Representation ID: 11865

SUPPORT Dedham Vale Society (Mr. David Eking)

Summary:

We support Options HM1, AH1 and RE1.

More details about Rep ID: 11865

Representation ID: 11769

SUPPORT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

I support Option RE1 which will allow for rural exception sites. I do not support Option RE2 which I believe is flawed and will in effect allow Option RE1 to be overridden. If we are to have rural exception sites then they must have teeth and we can see how this pans out in practice over the term of the plan, revising it if needed in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 11769

Representation ID: 9337

SUPPORT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Unlike the stated preference in this Plan, Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports Policy Option RE1 -
Market led housing should be excluded from such proposals, as it would dominate any development site
Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports the National Policy which states that within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the planning authority should have a lower threshold of 5 units or less 35% of affordable housing.

More details about Rep ID: 9337

Representation ID: 8556

OBJECT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

Prefer option RE2 as it is more ralistic

More details about Rep ID: 8556

Representation ID: 7730

SUPPORT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Rural exception sites should be like this.

More details about Rep ID: 7730

Representation ID: 7573

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

* Exceptions are to be assumed to be there for a good reason.
* There is a phenomenal amount of undeveloped land within Suffolk, Development for finance should not be the councils aim, development for need, and in harmony with the environment should.
* It is impossible to put back the best of a landscape, the best biodiversity and best green leisure areas once they are built over.
* So save the Exception areas and build beyond them, save the best for our children.

More details about Rep ID: 7573

Representation ID: 7442

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Exceptions are to be assumed to be there for a good reason. There is a huge amount of undeveloped land within Suffolk, Development for finance should not be the councils aim, development for need, and in harmony with the environment should. It is impossible to put back the best of a landscape, the best biodiversity and best green leisure areas once they are built over. So save the Exception areas and build beyond them, save the best for our children.

More details about Rep ID: 7442

Representation ID: 7010

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

If you are in the process of establishing appropriate new settlement boundaries/policy then there should be NO need for exceptions even for affordable housing.

More details about Rep ID: 7010

Representation ID: 6314

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6314

Representation ID: 4609

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

support

More details about Rep ID: 4609

Representation ID: 4342

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Sustainable development, at the heart of planning ? This is not a recommendation to build but to build wisely. There has to be a realistic prospect that houses are needed and suitable for a given location and it would appear from the surveys done that Rural housing is needed by the expanding local resident

More details about Rep ID: 4342

Representation ID: 3825

OBJECT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Do not allow rural development on farm land and pasture land.

More details about Rep ID: 3825

Representation ID: 3581

COMMENT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Sustainable development, at the heart of planning ? This is not a recommendation to build but to build wisely. There has to be a realistic prospect that houses are needed and suitable for a given location and it would appear from the surveys done that Rural housing is needed by the expanding local resident.

More details about Rep ID: 3581

Representation ID: 3394

COMMENT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

There should be no building at all on sites that would not normally be considered suitable for residential development

More details about Rep ID: 3394

Representation ID: 2089

SUPPORT Great Finborough Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

support

More details about Rep ID: 2089

Representation ID: 2051

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

To specify only affordable housing on such sites would need to be evidence based and I am not so sure all settlements would have this requirement or certainly to the amount which would need to be built to make a site viable.

More details about Rep ID: 2051

Representation ID: 1668

SUPPORT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council wishes to support option RE1

More details about Rep ID: 1668

Representation ID: 1238

OBJECT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

A rural exception site policy should only apply where there is a clear need for affordable housing in a particular village and where this need cannot be satisfied by other developments in that location.

More details about Rep ID: 1238

Representation ID: 184

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Such a policy would ensure local needs can be met

More details about Rep ID: 184

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

Powered by OpusConsult