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 BND1

Representation ID: 11985

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

Summary:

As identified in comments made to the section on rural development, Pigeon supports Option BND1 which is to review all settlement boundaries which have a threshold of 10 or more dwellings which are adjacent to or front an existing highway.

More details about Rep ID: 11985

Representation ID: 11893

SUPPORT Dedham Vale Society (Mr. David Eking)

Summary:

We have no objection in principle to "flexing" settlement boundaries in the AONB provided this is achieved without unacceptable damage to the settlement or the overall landscape of the AONB. We support Option BND1.

More details about Rep ID: 11893

Representation ID: 11847

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Settlement Boundaries
*Settlement boundaries are used to identify where the principle of development has been established, a threshold of ten related dwellings is applied. land outside of this settlement boundaries is countryside.
*The JLP view is that they need redrawing to allow rural growth opportunities.
*Whereas some factors considered are appropriate the new boundaries have been drawn to include development sites that have not been delivered. Further thought needs to be given to planning consents that have been granted but not yet delivered.
*Extensions to a settlement boundary are inappropriate if existing permissions have not been delivered.
*We also feel that the determination of settlement on the basis purely of numbers is over-simplistic. The setting and historical purpose of any collection of houses is important; for example, a collection of farm workers cottages located in the countryside should not necessarily establish a basis for a larger settlement. The existence of 'community' is also important.

More details about Rep ID: 11847

Representation ID: 11470

SUPPORT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS supports BND1 as it will provide certainty.

More details about Rep ID: 11470

Representation ID: 10417

SUPPORT Ms Penny Vinson

Summary:

I support a comprehensive review of all settlement boundaries and note there will be a next consultation stage on "boundary flexing". I would like the boundary of Somerton to be extended by a short distance to the east to make possible the development of 1 or 2 houses.

More details about Rep ID: 10417

Representation ID: 9361

SUPPORT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports the adoption of Consultation Policy BND1
The Parish Council do not want to see current settlement boundaries revoked and rely on new land allocations being made. The council agrees that this would be unrealistic

More details about Rep ID: 9361

Representation ID: 8973

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Settlement may also be appropriate to establish with less than ten houses where it is well defined, but equally may be appropriate to resist development due to a group of houses having a defined relationship to each other that would be spoiled by any development intruding.

More details about Rep ID: 8973

Representation ID: 7448

SUPPORT Mr Richard Milne

Summary:

The option to review and designate boundaries for all settlements above a threshold of 10 dwellings adjacent to or fronting an existing highway is considered appropriate. The settlement of the Street, Wickham Skeith, is sustainably sited fronting an existing highway with a bus stop outside and within close proximity to nearby facilities in Eye and Gislingham. By designating a settlement boundary it allows for a more proportionate distribution of development across the district and combined with a flexible approach to development outside of settlement boundaries would be well placed to absorb some further small scale development to the west.

More details about Rep ID: 7448

Representation ID: 6852

OBJECT mrs elizabeth clarke

Summary:

With regards to Lawshall the seven options listed in the Draft Local Plan areas which have been designated for new buildings only one option is appropriate for development. SS0683 is opposite the existing housing estate so in in a suitable location.
In respect of SS0685 this area would be suitable for one house as it is between two existing houses.
In our Neighbourhood Plan it is stated that no more than 5 dwellings should be built in a development area.
We need to preserve the unique character of this village.

More details about Rep ID: 6852

Representation ID: 6803

OBJECT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

To agree to this would be total folly at the present time. With the absence of a 5 year land supply Babergh is in an extremely weak position to support communities in opposing development and the NPPF simply adds to this. Agreeing to further loosening of boundaries would mere compound the damage which speculators and developers are doing to the countryside. Loosen as many boundaries as you like but they will never be satisfied.

More details about Rep ID: 6803

Representation ID: 6547

COMMENT Mrs Sarah Wakeley

Summary:

I hope that what has been outlined here will be adhered to in the long term as I think settlement boundaries have been rather elastic under the old system which is frustrating and wrong. People need to know what the environment around their house will be like long term instead of finding themselves being subsumed into a small town when they chose to live in a village, for example.

More details about Rep ID: 6547

Representation ID: 5669

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Yes agree

More details about Rep ID: 5669

Representation ID: 5206

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

Summary:

It is important to review boundaries for all settlements and for these boundaries to be drawn in a way that allows for development to take place within them. The threshold of 10 dwellings is supported. The alternative of revoking settlement boundaries would result in sustainable rural development being significantly constrained to the detriment of rural communities and the rural economy.

More details about Rep ID: 5206

Representation ID: 4834

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 4834

Representation ID: 2799

SUPPORT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2799

Representation ID: 2602

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

consistency and certainty

More details about Rep ID: 2602

Representation ID: 2208

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

The basic level of local government in this region is the civil parishes. Some settlement boundaries overlap these boundaries and there appears to be no provision to develop joint neighbourhood plans. Should parts of Barking appear in a Needham settlement boundary or should Darmsden be excluded. Development should be based in part on a local democratic consent. Long Thurlow is not a parish.

More details about Rep ID: 2208

Representation ID: 1194

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

We would like to define a settlement boundary fro Great Ashfield that makes sense for the community.

More details about Rep ID: 1194

Representation ID: 1078

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

is this what hamlet development is about. HG1 &2

More details about Rep ID: 1078

Representation ID: 337

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Good policy, allows for limited development in 'countryside'.

More details about Rep ID: 337

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

Powered by OpusConsult