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 RG1

Representation ID: 12757

OBJECT Building Partnerships Ltd. represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)

Summary:

it appears that both policy options would be inconsistent with Policy Option BHD1.

More details about Rep ID: 12757

Representation ID: 10158

OBJECT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

We Object to Option RG1 as this approach would provide less certainty in BMSDC's ability to meet the OAN identified over the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 10158

Representation ID: 9045

SUPPORT Mr Michael Plowright

Summary:

We should retain Babergh's existing Core Strategy 11. Development should be sequential in approach.

More details about Rep ID: 9045

Representation ID: 8949

OBJECT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

The practical application of CS11 has proved to be disproportionately cumbersome for some applications which are relatively small scale. If its kept as a policy then it should be made more flexible than it has been applied when proposals are brought forward for sites which do not represent major development ie under 10 dwellings.

The requirement to provide a local housing needs survey is particularly difficult where one might have already been done recently by others but results not published/shared and to initiate an independent new full survey just serves to confuse residents.

More details about Rep ID: 8949

Representation ID: 8616

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

New development and housing should be distributed across the district including smaller villages and hamlet

More details about Rep ID: 8616

Representation ID: 8173

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

The present policy is too restrictive in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which would complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that would be oppressive and change the character and local community have been promoted.
Case by Case approach might be appropriate but only if the bias is towards small or individual development.

More details about Rep ID: 8173

Representation ID: 8151

SUPPORT Mrs Kerry Gladden

Summary:

I see no need for change as the OAN has remained the same. CS11 should be retained as it includes a "sequential approach " to development which is both logical and fair. We need to retain as much of our countryside as we can while we can and not line the pockets of greedy companies who are solely profit driven !

More details about Rep ID: 8151

Representation ID: 8109

SUPPORT Mrs Sarah Knibbs

Summary:

The sequential approach to planning is sensible in these rural districts. Changes to the policy could be detrimental to both the natural and cultural heritage of our communities.
Retaining CS11 is vital.

More details about Rep ID: 8109

Representation ID: 7732

SUPPORT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

This is better because it would give a point to assess if it is sustainable growth or if it is going to lead to issues and affect other strategic policies.

More details about Rep ID: 7732

Representation ID: 7641

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Under present policies acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which would complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked, but large estate developments that would be oppressive and change the character and local community have not. This appears to be inappropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 7641

Representation ID: 7515

SUPPORT Mrs Gillian West

Summary:

The current hierarchical policy which directs development to brownfield sites, core & hinterland villages whilst imposing greater burden of justification upon countryside/greenfield land is proportionate and sensible for a predominantly rural county. Attempts to loosen these well-thought-out policies would be to the detriment of sensitive/protected areas. Precedent exists where BDC have approved development, wholly ignoring of CS11, on the basis of NPPF14 (5-year strategic housing target) only to have it over-turned in the High Court: this demonstrates that further loosening of policies in the countryside would be detrimental and maintenance of CS11 is vital.

More details about Rep ID: 7515

Representation ID: 7371

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

A case by case basis would be more beneficial

More details about Rep ID: 7371

Representation ID: 7343

OBJECT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

The policy is too restrictive and would allow large scale developments to change the character of the local community.

More details about Rep ID: 7343

Representation ID: 7110

SUPPORT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

Development is too important not to be considered carefully on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 7110

Representation ID: 7001

SUPPORT Miss Leanna Cleaver

Summary:

A sequential approach to development should remain.

More details about Rep ID: 7001

Representation ID: 6952

SUPPORT Mrs Carol Catchpole

Summary:

There is an element within core strategy 11 that only allows development in the countryside where there is proven local need and where the sequentiality of development has previously ben explored. I think it is important to retain this policy.

More details about Rep ID: 6952

Representation ID: 6703

COMMENT Stuart Wells

Summary:

We need to ensure that the bulk of new housing is done in and around key service areas. The opposite appears to have been happening despite the existing policies. Part of this comes down to the lack of clarity in existing policies. There seems to be a significant difference between what most villages would consider 'small scale' development and the view that the planning departments have adopted. I would suggest that villages should be allowed to grow organically (a handful of houses at a time) rather than in leaps of 30 - 40 houses at a time.

More details about Rep ID: 6703

Representation ID: 6471

SUPPORT Mr Robin Coates

Summary:

The current Strategies and policies defined in CS11, give a balance and considered approach to future developments and should be continued.

More details about Rep ID: 6471

Representation ID: 6338

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6338

Representation ID: 6336

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6336

Representation ID: 6212

SUPPORT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

I strongly support the continuance of CS11

More details about Rep ID: 6212

Representation ID: 6136

SUPPORT david baldry

Summary:

I feel that Core Strategy 11 works and should be retained as it allows for a sequential approach to development and is targeted to areas suited to development.

More details about Rep ID: 6136

Representation ID: 5879

SUPPORT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Support RG1, HG1 and existing core strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 5879

Representation ID: 5652

SUPPORT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

Each case should be assessed on its individual merits.

More details about Rep ID: 5652

Representation ID: 5505

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

Need to maintain CS11.

More details about Rep ID: 5505

Representation ID: 5441

SUPPORT Wherstead Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Knibbs)

Summary:

We think that CS 11 works and should be retained, as development is targeted sequentially to areas suited to development,

More details about Rep ID: 5441

Representation ID: 5390

SUPPORT Mrs Rebecca Wallis

Summary:

I support this option as it will be a consecutive approach to development. It will ensure that housing is developed in keeping with the image of rural Suffolk and not to the detriment of existing homes and villages.

More details about Rep ID: 5390

Representation ID: 5378

SUPPORT theresa vinnicombe

Summary:

By taking this option there will be a sequential approach to planning that will secure sites that support a rural Suffolk. Maintaining countryside for our generation of young people.

More details about Rep ID: 5378

Representation ID: 5071

SUPPORT Mr Stephen Appegate

Summary:

As far as I can see core strategy 11allows for sequential approach to development which is a sensible approach. And also allows for development where there is proven local need,

More details about Rep ID: 5071

Representation ID: 4781

SUPPORT Mrs Claire Osborne

Summary:

This strategy best supports the recently made Lawshall Neighbourhood Plan. Many volunteer hours and a great deal of BDC consultation time has gone into the plan. To have it's policies diminished by an allocation of sites strategy would be unacceptable.
Lawshall has already opened up areas outside and remote from its BUABs in an effort to avoid large scale enclaves being built.

More details about Rep ID: 4781

Representation ID: 4630

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 4630

Representation ID: 4424

SUPPORT Mrs Maggie Talmer

Summary:

Development should be aimed at brownfield sites with urban infill. Areas identified/classified as
countryside should be left as countryside. The existing Core Strategy 11 confirms this position

More details about Rep ID: 4424

Representation ID: 4367

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

I support the policy of ONLY building in our villages, hamlets, hinterland villages, countryside in VERY exceptional circumstances. To destroy the inherent character of this very unique part of the world, and associated rare wildlife habitat, would be historically criminal, irresponsible, and serve no purpose whatsoever. To the contrary, such destruction would cause very negative effects for society, our economy, our heritage and our future

More details about Rep ID: 4367

Representation ID: 4291

SUPPORT Mr Jeremy Doncaster

Summary:

If it necessary to build, it should be considered small and individual developments which complement the county character.

More details about Rep ID: 4291

Representation ID: 4276

SUPPORT Mrs Barbara Thompson

Summary:

There does not appearto be any reasonable reason to deviate away from the existing strategy which is still fit for purpose and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

More details about Rep ID: 4276

Representation ID: 4265

SUPPORT Mrs Julie Gentry

Summary:

Small scale on individual merit would be best to protect our rural areas

More details about Rep ID: 4265

Representation ID: 4000

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

The present policy is too restrictive in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which would complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that would be oppressive and change the character and local community have been promoted.

Case by Case approach might be appropriate but only if the bias is towards small or individual development.

More details about Rep ID: 4000

Representation ID: 3929

SUPPORT Mr Derek Fisher

Summary:

Case by case consideration should be maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 3929

Representation ID: 3891

SUPPORT Mr Alan Squirrell

Summary:

I strongly support the policy of ONLY building in our villages, hamlets, hinterland villages, countryside in VERY exceptional circumstances. To destroy the inherent character of this very unique part of the world, and associated rare wildlife habitat, would be historically criminal, irresponsible, and serve no purpose whatsoever. To the contrary, such destruction would cause very negative effects for society, our economy, our heritage and our future.

More details about Rep ID: 3891

Representation ID: 3647

SUPPORT Mrs Carol Ingleson

Summary:

I believe that our hinterland/hamlets should be preserved at all costs - they are a haven for wildlife as well as attracting tourists and are the face of Suffolk

More details about Rep ID: 3647

Representation ID: 3630

COMMENT Hartest Parish Council (Mr Nick Price)

Summary:

The emerging Hartest Neighbourhood Plan has made a considerable investment in working with and reacting to the existing CS11 policy. Furthermore, a criteria based policy to assess each case on its individual merits, is fundamental to the HNP approach to development. It is imperative that any move away from the CS11 approach, does not undermine the effectiveness of the emerging HNP, or restrict appropriate small development.

More details about Rep ID: 3630

Representation ID: 2178

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The present policy is too restrictive in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders, which would complement their character without oppressive change, have been blocked by planning policies. And yet large estate developments that are oppressive and change the character and local community have been promoted. 10% development within a Hamlet, village, town or area tied to rules that dictate development should be complimentary to the community and environment over 20 years would be much fairer and provide development more proportionate to the needs of the the natural expansion of local communities.

More details about Rep ID: 2178

Representation ID: 1873

SUPPORT Mr Simon Oldfield

Summary:

Developments should continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis. To save our traditional villages no development should be allowed outside established village boundaries. 70 % of development should be in urban areas preferably on brownfield sites and 30% in rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 1873

Representation ID: 1819

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Do not support this approach

More details about Rep ID: 1819

Representation ID: 1343

SUPPORT Mrs helen fawthrop

Summary:

I strongly support retaining this policy. Hamlets/hinterland villages should only be developed exceptionally. They are part of the character of Babergh and we must preserve that character or risk losing our identity.. Our historic villages and listed buildings can only be appreciated in the setting that enhances them. We musn't spoil that enhancement for future generations to see. Yes we need houses - let's build separate new communities with their own new supporting infrastructure, roads, facilities and services.

More details about Rep ID: 1343

Representation ID: 194

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

probably the fairest approach to the problem

More details about Rep ID: 194

Representation ID: 46

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

This seems reasonable.

More details about Rep ID: 46

Representation ID: 5

COMMENT Prof George Constantinides

Summary:

I strongly support Option RG1. It is important that smaller "hamlets" continue to be treated as open countryside, to preserve Babergh's unique dwellings. Build should only be in cases of truly exceptional need.

More details about Rep ID: 5

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

Powered by OpusConsult