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 RG2

Representation ID: 13121

SUPPORT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Would support the preference for allocations with flexibility for small scale infill - SCDC would suggest that this may have an impact on the site assessment methodology used in the SHELAA which is aligned across the Ipswich Housing Market Area.

More details about Rep ID: 13121

Representation ID: 12763

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

Summary:

Allocations with flexibility for small scale infill - is preferable to Option RG1

More details about Rep ID: 12763

Representation ID: 12197

SUPPORT The Greenwich Hospital represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr Paul Sutton)

Summary:

We would support Option RG2 over Option RG1 in terms of options for rural growth, with specific reference to Core Villages, such as Holbrook. As noted, allocating sites in villages provides certainty on the principle and potential scale of development, which is important for both local communities and developers/landowners alike.

More details about Rep ID: 12197

Representation ID: 11928

SUPPORT Pigeon Investmenrt Management (Mr. Andrew Fillmore) represented by Beacon Planning Ltd (Ms Sophie Pain)

Summary:

Pigeon would agree with the Councils approach to Option RG2 on the basis that the
settlement boundaries for towns and core villages are also aligned. As part of this alignment process, the Councils should include land which has planning permission or approval subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement. The settlement boundaries should also be reviewed to take in sites adjacent to the existing settlement boundary, which are deliverable and which do not make a meaningful contribution to the countryside thereby maximising opportunities to deliver sufficient land for the supply of housing in sustainable locations.

More details about Rep ID: 11928

Representation ID: 11870

SUPPORT Dedham Vale Society (Mr. David Eking)

Summary:

We also prefer Option RG2 to RG1, provided the emphasis remains heavily on "small scale". We agree that this is more likely to provide clarity than the current core strategy (CS11).

More details about Rep ID: 11870

Representation ID: 11775

SUPPORT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

I prefer Option RG2. However, again there is no reference to the need to maintain and enhance the character of our natural and heritage landscape when it comes to rural development.

More details about Rep ID: 11775

Representation ID: 10923

SUPPORT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

Allocations with flexibility for small scale infill is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 10923

Representation ID: 9390

SUPPORT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

We support RG2 as this gives the village the opportunity for appropriate small scale development. It essential that MSDC do not approve contentious applications without consulting the district and parish councillors.

More details about Rep ID: 9390

Representation ID: 9341

SUPPORT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports Conultation Policy Option RG1 and not Babergh's preferred recommendation of RG2
The Council believes that there are merits in using a criteria based approach, in assessing each development proposal case on its merits.
These 'criteria' should be clear, measurable and robust

More details about Rep ID: 9341

Representation ID: 9102

SUPPORT Ms Judith Roberts

Summary:

Support RG2

More details about Rep ID: 9102

Representation ID: 9079

OBJECT Miss Tracey Durling

Summary:

Area of development in Great Waldingfield is of great concern, any building within the area will have a great impact. Not only with regards to traffic, noise and light pollution, it will completely change the character of the area. Traffic in the small narrow lanes is already a problem, when out walking the frequency of traffic is worrying and to have that increase would be concerning with regards to safety. People choose to live here because of the rural feel. Area of greatest concern is SS0247. SS0198 would be the only area that would have the least impact.

More details about Rep ID: 9079

Representation ID: 8815

COMMENT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

Summary:

* Proportionality is key; The JLP proposes a 9% Housing need over 20 years. This equates to one new home in a ten house hamlet, but why stop there. Such growth is potentially desirable naturally matching the growth of any micro community. Generally children grow older and want their own homes within their community, why shouldn't the provision and burden be spread evenly at 9%, by hamlet, village and town.
* We would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.

More details about Rep ID: 8815

Representation ID: 8714

OBJECT Portland Planning (Gillian Davidson)

Summary:

Representation is 98 words in length.

More details about Rep ID: 8714

Representation ID: 8699

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

[On behalf of Trinity College]
We Support Option RG2 as this provides certainty for development within more sustainable locations whilst also accommodating the potential for development in other locations if they meet the criteria. This is therefore compliant with the NPPF in seeking to plan positively for the delivery of housing, whilst including a balancing exercise for less sustainable locations which in itself supports the presumption in favour of sustainable development and an assessment of harm versus benefits.

More details about Rep ID: 8699

Representation ID: 8621

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

New development and housing should be distributed across the district including small villages and hamlets.
When small villages and hamlets support development it should be allowed. The process should be on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 8621

Representation ID: 8582

OBJECT Mr Michael Beiley

Summary:

The term "proportionate development" in hinterland villages must be properly defined and a ceiling set for total % increase e.g. a maximum increase of 20% growth in a village of 50 houses over the lifetime of the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 8582

Representation ID: 8530

SUPPORT SHOTLEY PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dina Bedwell)

Summary:

We believe this would provide greater certainty whilst still allowing a certain level of flexibility, which would be beneficial in areas where, for example, the potential for very small scale development has already been identified or considered.

More details about Rep ID: 8530

Representation ID: 8474

SUPPORT Mr. Derrick Haley

Summary:

This again gives us the flexibility because if we don't have that then some places will just die.So e places just want a few homes and why not.

More details about Rep ID: 8474

Representation ID: 8190

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

* Proportionality is key here, The JLP proposes a 9% Housing need over 20 years
A limit on development per Parish would allow for variations in need without being unfairly excessive in any one area.
Limiting to 10 houses in a group is perhaps over restrictive unless such a restriction was loosely based where an area has scattered housing.
Parish Councils can identify the best areas to build in their parish and perhaps the facilities they need most for consideration within the 106 assignments.

More details about Rep ID: 8190

Representation ID: 8115

OBJECT Mrs Sarah Knibbs

Summary:

The current policies help inform planning applications in our districts, and ensure that we do not build over agricultural land unless and until all other options have been exercised, and that our existing communites are not overwhelmed by new buid
This option would discard the principle of sequential development

More details about Rep ID: 8115

Representation ID: 7733

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

RG1 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: 7733

Representation ID: 7642

SUPPORT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

* Proportionality is key here, The JLP proposes a 9% Housing need over 20 years
* A limit on development per Parish would allow for variations in need without being unfairly excessive in any one area.
* Limiting to 10 houses in a group is perhaps over restrictive unless such a restriction was loosely based where an area has scattered housing.
* Parish Councils can identify the best areas to build in their parish and perhaps the facilities they need most for consideration within the 106 assignments.

More details about Rep ID: 7642

Representation ID: 7436

SUPPORT Mr Richard Milne

Summary:

The introduction of a more flexible policy to allow infill development in areas previously considered open countryside and which adjoin existing settlements and clusters would be considered appropriate due to the current shortfall in housing supply in the district and the sustainable approach to allowing development which abuts existing development but previously would have been considered outside a settlement boundary. The Street, Wickham Skeith is well sited such that additional dwellings to the west could be comfortably accommodated without having a significant impact on the countryside whilst at the same time making a valuable contribution to housing supply.

More details about Rep ID: 7436

Representation ID: 7376

OBJECT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

Flexibility would mean the potential for large scale developments to occur.

More details about Rep ID: 7376

Representation ID: 7347

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

This would protect small communities from the damage large scale developments would have.

More details about Rep ID: 7347

Representation ID: 6826

COMMENT mrs Netty Verkroost

Summary:

there should be some development allowed within hamlets and clusters .

More details about Rep ID: 6826

Representation ID: 6776

SUPPORT Hill (Lee Melin)

Summary:

Allocation of larger sites (more than 10 dwellings) would provide certainty and enable infrstructure planning to be addressed at the earliest opportunity.

More details about Rep ID: 6776

Representation ID: 6485

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Support but with limits on size of development.

More details about Rep ID: 6485

Representation ID: 5739

COMMENT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

For hinterland villages and hamlets there should certainly not be any development or infill. This affects the character of the area and can be a charter for developers and landowners looking to make a fast buck at the expense of the local community.
Of course people need to be able to move into areas and the current turnover of housing occupation allows this - evidenced by the constant supply of variety of houses for sale in many areas.

More details about Rep ID: 5739

Representation ID: 5656

COMMENT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

Infill is often acceptable but squeezing inappropriately small dwellings between more substantial dwellings can ruin the character of an area. Each case should be considered on its individual merit.

More details about Rep ID: 5656

Representation ID: 5556

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Agree.

More details about Rep ID: 5556

Representation ID: 5445

OBJECT Wherstead Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Knibbs)

Summary:

We strongly support CS11 and sequential development, which permits the flexibility for small scale infill, provided there is proven local need.

More details about Rep ID: 5445

Representation ID: 5398

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 5398

Representation ID: 5379

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 5379

Representation ID: 5204

SUPPORT Woodbridge Properties Ltd represented by Shallish Associated Limited (Mr A Shallish)

Summary:

Option RG2 will provide certainty for significant development within towns and core villages, whilst providing flexibility for development to occur in hinterland villages and smaller settlements, which will help to sustain the rural communities. This is considered to be an appropriate approach to the sustainable development across the district as a whole.

More details about Rep ID: 5204

Representation ID: 4811

OBJECT Mrs Claire Osborne

Summary:

This strategy erodes the recently made Lawshall Neighbourhood Plan. It is not in line with the survey results from Lawshall's residents. A criteria based approach were smaller developments, in keeping with the specific area, are spread across the village is preferable to the allocation of fewer, larger sites.

Has BDC conducted a similar survey? If not, I would like to suggest that they do.

More details about Rep ID: 4811

Representation ID: 4530

SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

RG2 - there should be flexibility if a need for development is proven

More details about Rep ID: 4530

Representation ID: 4525

SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

support

More details about Rep ID: 4525

Representation ID: 4447

SUPPORT Mr J Rapley

Summary:

This Option RG2 is the most appropriate for Beyton as it is currently classified as a Hinterland village . There are sites within the existing settlement boundary which can be developed without adversely affecting the character of the community.

However any planning submission outside the existing development boundary must involve the Parish council and the local District Councillor(s) in order to maintain public confidence in the decision process.

More details about Rep ID: 4447

Representation ID: 4368

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Identifying development sites in hinterland villages and re-drawing their boundaries is a developer's charter and a recipe for destroying our rural environment. This policy would make it even easier than hitherto for councils and developers to ruin traditional villages. Properties next to or near these identified sites would immediately be blighted, rendering them unsaleable or vastly reduced in value. The current policy of treating development on a case by case basis must be continued - with a presumption that brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites should be built on. Existing village boundaries must be enforced

More details about Rep ID: 4368

Representation ID: 4275

SUPPORT Mrs Julie Gentry

Summary:

Small scale for the benefit of the community it is in

More details about Rep ID: 4275

Representation ID: 4006

SUPPORT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Proportionality is key here, The JLP proposes a 9% Housing need over 20 years.

A limit on development per Parish would allow for variations in need without being unfairly excessive in any one area. Parish Councils can identify the best areas to build in their parish and perhaps the facilities they need most for consideration within the 106 assignments.

More details about Rep ID: 4006

Representation ID: 3887

SUPPORT Ms Carole Skippen

Summary:

Let us keep our villages over developments & new housing will completely overwhelme our lovely villages. Building on countryside should be a last resort.
National Planning Policy Framework should be adhered to, keep Core Stratagy 11 !

More details about Rep ID: 3887

Representation ID: 3632

OBJECT Hartest Parish Council (Mr Nick Price)

Summary:

No sites for development were submitted and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan does not extend the BUAB or allocate sites. The Plan seeks to work with the exiting CS11 policy to encourage sites adjacent to the BUAB over the next 20 years. RG2 could result in no development being permitted around the existent BUAB at all, which is contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan

More details about Rep ID: 3632

Representation ID: 3374

OBJECT Mr Simon Oldfield

Summary:

Identifying development sites in hinterland villages and re-drawing their boundaries is a developer's charter and a recipe for destroying our rural environment. This policy would make it even easier than hitherto for councils and developers to ruin traditional villages. Properties next to or near these identified sites would immediately be blighted, rendering them unsaleable or vastly reduced in value. The current policy of treating development on a case by case basis must be continued - with a presumption that brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites should be built on. Existing village boundaries must be enforced

More details about Rep ID: 3374

Representation ID: 3345

SUPPORT Mrs Margaret Podd

Summary:

Support because of the greater certainty it gives.

More details about Rep ID: 3345

Representation ID: 3137

SUPPORT Iain Pocock

Summary:

Small scale infill will allow more organic growth, in line with local needs and reduce the need for larger developments with great environmental and societal impact diversifying growth to where it is most needed. Also allows greater opportunity for providing some lower cost housing in rural locations

More details about Rep ID: 3137

Representation ID: 2980

SUPPORT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

We support this policy

More details about Rep ID: 2980

Representation ID: 2976

SUPPORT Cllr Diana Kearsley

Summary:

I support option HG2 but with reservation - the rural nature of Mid Suffolk must not be lost

More details about Rep ID: 2976

Representation ID: 2788

SUPPORT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2788

Representation ID: 2541

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

Certainty and flexibility

More details about Rep ID: 2541

Representation ID: 2179

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Proportionality is key here, One house added to a five house hamlet over the term of 20 years not oppressive. Though perhaps things should be looked at as groups of houses or small hamlets, or even by parishes. Parish councils could identify the best areas to meet the 9% housing need in their parish and perhaps the facilities they need most for consideration within the 106 assignments.

More details about Rep ID: 2179

Representation ID: 2174

SUPPORT K&P Coghlin

Summary:

Need to ensure there are clear guidelines regarding developments and that distinctive character of the area is enhanced.

More details about Rep ID: 2174

Representation ID: 2058

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

support

More details about Rep ID: 2058

Representation ID: 1885

SUPPORT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

In vast areas of rural Suffolk the population has been static over the last 100 years despite the growth in the population nationally.

This decline in population is a barrier to local enterprise and development. All areas need additional housing.

More details about Rep ID: 1885

Representation ID: 1820

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Support this approach

More details about Rep ID: 1820

Representation ID: 1754

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Support this proposal

More details about Rep ID: 1754

Representation ID: 1713

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 1713

Representation ID: 1669

SUPPORT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council supports Options in RG2

More details about Rep ID: 1669

Representation ID: 1500

SUPPORT Tostock Parish Council (Ron Perks)

Summary:

The Parish Council supports the District Council's preferred approach of allocating sites in towns and core villages to provide certainty on the principle and potential scale of large development.

More details about Rep ID: 1500

Representation ID: 1180

SUPPORT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

It would be useful if self build sites could be specifically identified within this approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1180

Representation ID: 1138

SUPPORT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Preferred for flexibility. Yet again local planning consultees (councils) have to carry more weight than they appear to currently

More details about Rep ID: 1138

Representation ID: 951

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Fully support

More details about Rep ID: 951

Representation ID: 400

SUPPORT Mr Ralph Carpenter

Summary:

A well thought through plan which identifies preferred development areas based on the criteria outlined above, as opposed to a plan which is dependent upon land owners coming forward with sites will promote more orderly development.
Some authorities use this approach but it requires skill and consultation to carry communities with it.
Neighbourhood plans can be a vehicle for facilitating this approach, but it is critical for our planners to have clearly defined aspirations to give communities the courage to identify potential sites

More details about Rep ID: 400

Representation ID: 281

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I agree

More details about Rep ID: 281

Representation ID: 195

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Provided it supports local industry without spoiling the attributes of the village

More details about Rep ID: 195

Representation ID: 80

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

Summary:

Support RG2 since this allows employment opportunities in villages not just towns

More details about Rep ID: 80

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

Powered by OpusConsult