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) - SS0295 - Land south east of Back Lane

Representation ID: 12830

SUPPORT Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council (Angela Chapman)

Summary:

Geographic centre of village. May be suitable for new school.

Geographic centre of the village. Would aid cohesion between Elm Lane Residents and rest of Village. Possible site for replacement school. Siting laying fields next to Elm Lane would help maintain their rural view. Road aces will be difficult. Would not want Elm Lane to be used. Junction with London Road already has safety concerns but a combined junction could reduce or eliminate issues.

More details about Rep ID: 12830

Representation ID: 12435

OBJECT Mrs Zena Gravener

Summary:

Building houses adjacent to Back Lane would be completely out of all common sense. 226 houses with no access to the road, which is single track for a large part, and totally congested if two cars wish to use it in opposite directions!
I cannot believe that anyone could possibly suggest such a scheme.

More details about Rep ID: 12435

Representation ID: 12270

OBJECT Mr Mag Osborne

Summary:

Back Lane is a single track lane, there is no provision for a new access road and proposing to build 226 houses on this land will create huge amounts of additional traffic. The local infrastructure currently cannot cope and there appears to be no provision for new infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 12270

Representation ID: 12213

OBJECT M Flaherty

Summary:

Small lanes unable to take extra traffic. Valuable green fields for crops.

More details about Rep ID: 12213

Representation ID: 12181

OBJECT Marilyn Baldry

Summary:

This area of land is bordered by 2 very narrow lanes, which at the moment demands very slow speeds for 2 cars to pass. There are no footpaths nor is there any room to make them - 226 houses would obviously create more than several children - the village school is full.

More details about Rep ID: 12181

Representation ID: 12176

OBJECT Graham Baldry

Summary:

Both Elm Lane and Back Lane would not support the extra volumes of traffic generated by this development. As there are no plans to improve the infrastructure, also local school and doctors would not be able to cope with the population increase.

More details about Rep ID: 12176

Representation ID: 12119

OBJECT Mrs S Leeks

Summary:

1. Roads unable to cope at peak times now.
2. School full
3. Difficult to get Drs. appointment now

More details about Rep ID: 12119

Representation ID: 10881

OBJECT Mrs Elena Stephenson

Summary:

A12 and Old London Road are operating above their capacity now
There will be an Impact on the sensitive landscapes and historic environment
Local services and facilities are already stretched beyond the capacity

More details about Rep ID: 10881

Representation ID: 10119

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

Sites SS0295, SS0944* and SS0871 combine
to form one large continuous site. There are several Grade II listed buildings in close
proximity to the northern and southern site boundaries. Any development of the site
has the potential to impact upon these heritage assets. The presence of these
heritage assets should be considered carefully as part of the site allocation process.

More details about Rep ID: 10119

Representation ID: 9367

OBJECT Mr J Bradford

Summary:

The site is of particular concern if this site or any part of it is considered for building on, there should be no access via Elm Lane or Back Lane for all motor vehicles. These lanes are unsuitable, unnecessary and therefore unacceptable for access to this site.

More details about Rep ID: 9367

Representation ID: 9120

OBJECT Mrs Joanna Green

Summary:

We do not have the infrastructure now, let alone for all these proposed houses, warehouses and offices! This country does not need all these houses being built! We love our countryside! We love our wildlife! We are not a town! We are a village!

More details about Rep ID: 9120

Representation ID: 7928

OBJECT Mr Simon Gibbs

Summary:

There are far better sites or industrial than this, the sugar beat site at sproughton being one of them

The transport links are awful, there is 7.5ton exclusion in Sproughton and swan hill so all traffic from the west will have to go round the Copdock Interchange. There is already severe build up of traffic this will only add to that

Elm Lane is exactly that a lane it is a single track width with no passing places
This would not fit within a village setting and that is what Copdcok/Washbrook is it is not a part of Ipswich

More details about Rep ID: 7928

Representation ID: 7918

OBJECT Mrs Linda Emery

Summary:

SS0295 No provision has been included in the plan to accommodate the huge increase in village inhabitants in the local school, doctors, dentists etc or upgrade the sewerarage system in the area which has previously failed.

There is no proposed new access road for the homes, inevitably leading to queues, frustration and RTA's. Extra traffic would exacerbate already difficult travel along Swan Lane and the new A12 during peak periods.

The increased traffic would cause issues and possible RTA at any new access/turning points introduced within development of this area, proposed in the joint plan.

More details about Rep ID: 7918

Representation ID: 7496

OBJECT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

There are significant issues with regard to loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of light, highway safety, traffic, noise, as well as general infrastructure issues for this site, and village in general. Planned, small scale housing might be appropraite, with significant mitigation to protect existing housing, but not large scale developments.

More details about Rep ID: 7496

Representation ID: 7342

OBJECT Mr Watling Michael

Summary:

As commented in SS 0245 road system will not cope with the additional traffic. Traffic flows will have an even bigger impact on village as present village roads not adequate to cope Education and medial provisions not adequate now. Large scale developments of this size will change the character and environment of the village too much.

More details about Rep ID: 7342

Representation ID: 5638

OBJECT mr simon downey

Summary:

Similar objections to site SS0944 concerning the site access - namely the size of Elm Lane, and the lack of infrastructure to support even existing levels of traffic. This area is also not suitable for industrial development for these reasons.
The proposal for a large development in this area is unsustainable - for example, the local school is full and so are the nearby doctors.

More details about Rep ID: 5638

Representation ID: 4421

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

SS0295 Land south east of Back Lane
See also SS0944. Geographic centre of village. May be suitable for new school.

More details about Rep ID: 4421

Representation ID: 4389

OBJECT Mrs Stella Blackwell

Summary:

Put simply, this area cannot support such a development because it does not and can not offer the road infrastructure and services needed to support it. Please find specific examples about this, as well as concerns about nature conservation, loss of privacy and overshadowing in my accompanying representation.

More details about Rep ID: 4389

Representation ID: 3864

OBJECT Mrs Michaela Chan

Summary:

No infrasructure in place. Loss of wildlife habitats. Noise and air pollution increased.

More details about Rep ID: 3864

Representation ID: 3758

OBJECT Mr Richard English

Summary:

Under the Allotments Act of 1908 the council have a statutory duty to provide allotments to persons liable to pay the council tax. This is being currently fulfilled being that there are 6 or more residents requiring this service.
Selling and building upon this land will show a flagrant disregard to the law and accordingly residents who have used this land in accordance with the act for many years.

More details about Rep ID: 3758

Representation ID: 3150

OBJECT Iain Pocock

Summary:

As with all the C&W sites there is no village infrastructure to support major levels of incremental housing and the village is already a rat run for those seeking to avoid the A12/14 intersection.This makes London Road, intersections and surrounding lanes congested and dangerous for users (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders)

This site particularly unsuitable as Back Lane/Elm Lane cannot support two way traffic, have no pavements (or space for) and are unlit however are the main route to the village bus stops for many

More details about Rep ID: 3150

Representation ID: 3125

OBJECT Mr Mark Gladwell

Summary:

I was born in Copdock 71 years ago and have lived both on Back Lane and on Elm Lane. These two narrow country lanes which have not been upgraded in all this time are totally unsuitable to take any extra traffic. They are neither wide enough to accommodate business traffic nor have pavements. Without a detailed infrastructure plan I believe it would be irresponsible to support any development on this proposed site.

More details about Rep ID: 3125

Representation ID: 3081

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Andrew Burl

Summary:

Concerned about traffic congestion in Elm lane and Back lane.
These are narrow lanes and unsuitable for the volume of traffic that this proposed development would require.

More details about Rep ID: 3081

Representation ID: 2747

OBJECT mr david green

Summary:

infrastructure of roads/lanes not suitable for the development.

More details about Rep ID: 2747

Representation ID: 2577

OBJECT Mr Terry Babbs

Summary:

A smaller, targeted plan for more housing could be considered , but the imposition of this many new houses and Industrial developments onto the existing village and its infrastructure is unacceptable for many reasons, including :-

Existing traffic levels on Old London Road and Swan Hill are already high during early morning and whenever there are problems on A12/Copdock interchange. The inevitable increase would lead to ridiculous levels of congestion, noise and air pollution.

Expanding/establishing new GP practices.

Increasing the number of school places.

Increasing already stretched levels of neighbourhood policing.

Replacing lost amenities such as allotments.

More details about Rep ID: 2577

Representation ID: 2148

OBJECT Anne & Dennis Kell

Summary:

These allotments are currently operating at near capacity. The local authority has a statutory duty to provide allotments and removal of this land would have a significant impact on the local villagers, who have tended their plots for many years. With modern day housing generally having very small gardens any new development is likely to generate even more demand for allotments. Offering us new land outside the village envelop as an alternative would seriously disadvantage villagers, many of whom walk to tend their plots. Allotments need to be central to the village and easily accessible to all. The current location is very suitable and should not be impacted by any proposed development.

More details about Rep ID: 2148

Representation ID: 2101

OBJECT Mr Adrian Hutchings

Summary:

Back Lane and Elm Lane are narrow roads with dangerous corners and would not support additional traffic.

Ad hoc solution by tacking on development to an area which does not have appropriate infrastructure does not meet the need for long term sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 2101

Representation ID: 1503

OBJECT Mr JASON BUDLOO

Summary:

The loss of the allotments would be a loss of community facilities and assets. We should be maintaining and encouraging these facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 1503

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

Powered by OpusConsult