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) - Q11

Representation ID: 16161

COMMENT Paul Reeley

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16161

Representation ID: 16139

COMMENT Ms. Perpetua Ratcliffe

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16139

Representation ID: 16117

COMMENT Mr P. Pollard

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16117

Representation ID: 16095

COMMENT Mrs Natalie Brook

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16095

Representation ID: 16073

COMMENT Mrs J. Pollard

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16073

Representation ID: 16051

COMMENT Mr Gavin Brook

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16051

Representation ID: 16029

COMMENT Mr Michael Hills

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16029

Representation ID: 16007

COMMENT Mrs Helena Knight

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 16007

Representation ID: 15985

COMMENT Mr Roger Knight

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15985

Representation ID: 15963

COMMENT Mrs J. A. Moore

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15963

Representation ID: 15941

COMMENT Miss Jane Anne Moore

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15941

Representation ID: 15919

COMMENT Mr John Moore

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15919

Representation ID: 15897

COMMENT Mr Dennis John Griggs

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15897

Representation ID: 15875

COMMENT Miss Hockley

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15875

Representation ID: 15853

COMMENT Mr Castle

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15853

Representation ID: 15831

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rowntree

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15831

Representation ID: 15809

COMMENT Mr Carl Rowntree

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15809

Representation ID: 15787

COMMENT Miss Patricia Copeman

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15787

Representation ID: 15765

COMMENT Mr Barry Pearce

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15765

Representation ID: 15743

COMMENT Mrs Faith Marsden

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15743

Representation ID: 15721

COMMENT Mrs Clare Kiely

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15721

Representation ID: 15699

COMMENT Mr Michael Kiely

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15699

Representation ID: 15677

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Maisey

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15677

Representation ID: 15655

COMMENT Mr John Maisey

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15655

Representation ID: 15633

COMMENT Mrs Dorothy Scrivener

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15633

Representation ID: 15611

COMMENT Mr George Scrivener

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15611

Representation ID: 15589

COMMENT Mrs Linda Dennison

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15589

Representation ID: 15567

COMMENT Mr Ralph W. Godbold

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15567

Representation ID: 15545

COMMENT Mrs Blythe Smith

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15545

Representation ID: 15523

COMMENT Mr Richard Smith

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15523

Representation ID: 15501

COMMENT Mrs G. P. Godbold

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15501

Representation ID: 15479

COMMENT Mr. Giles Godbold

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15479

Representation ID: 15457

COMMENT Mrs Sally Hoskyns

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15457

Representation ID: 15435

COMMENT Mr George Major

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15435

Representation ID: 15413

COMMENT Mrs Audrey Cremer

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15413

Representation ID: 15391

COMMENT Ms. Cindy Hughes

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15391

Representation ID: 15369

COMMENT Mr. Anthony Wickenden

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15369

Representation ID: 15347

COMMENT Mrs Irene Wickenden

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15347

Representation ID: 15325

COMMENT Mrs Jacqueline Cordwell

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15325

Representation ID: 15303

COMMENT Mr Leslie Graham Walter Cremer

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15303

Representation ID: 15281

COMMENT Mr. D.I.O. Johnson

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15281

Representation ID: 15259

COMMENT Mrs D. Johnson

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15259

Representation ID: 15237

COMMENT Anthony & Tracy Keeble

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15237

Representation ID: 15215

COMMENT Mr. John Fensom

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15215

Representation ID: 15193

COMMENT Mr. Alan Cordwell

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15193

Representation ID: 15171

COMMENT Mrs Annette Dovell

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15171

Representation ID: 15149

COMMENT Mr. Martin Hewett

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15149

Representation ID: 15127

COMMENT Ms. Shirley Hewett

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15127

Representation ID: 15105

COMMENT Mrs. Carol Forward

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15105

Representation ID: 15083

COMMENT Mr. Grant Lloyd

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15083

Representation ID: 15061

COMMENT Mrts. Natasha Lloyd

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15061

Representation ID: 15039

COMMENT Mr. John Forward

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15039

Representation ID: 15017

COMMENT Mr. Hoskyns

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 15017

Representation ID: 14995

COMMENT Miss Isabel De Minvielle Devaux

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14995

Representation ID: 14973

COMMENT Mr. Ian East

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14973

Representation ID: 14951

COMMENT Ms. Tracy East

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14951

Representation ID: 14929

COMMENT Ms. Ilona Northall

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14929

Representation ID: 14907

COMMENT Mr. Alex James Richard May

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14907

Representation ID: 14885

COMMENT Mr. Richard John May

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14885

Representation ID: 14863

COMMENT Ms. Kathryn Anne May

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14863

Representation ID: 14841

COMMENT Ms. Olivia Frances Chloe May

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14841

Representation ID: 14819

COMMENT Mr. Charles Hogger

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14819

Representation ID: 14797

COMMENT Ms. Jo-Ann Hogger

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14797

Representation ID: 14775

COMMENT Mr P. L. Ratcliffe

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14775

Representation ID: 14753

COMMENT Miss Tracey Durling

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14753

Representation ID: 14731

COMMENT Mrs Carol Griggs

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 14731

Representation ID: 13234

COMMENT Mr. Artist

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 13234

Representation ID: 13219

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

Summary:

The review of the settlement hierarchy and the inclusion of Sproughton and Copdock and Washbrook in the Ipswich Fringe area is welcomed. However, the settlement scoring system relates solely to access to facilities and services within each village; on this basis Sproughton is identified as a Core Village and Copdock and Washbrook is identified as a hinterland village in the Consultation Document.
Hence Option SET1 is clearly flawed and Option SET2 which takes account of proximity to larger settlements where higher order shops and services are available, is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 13219

Representation ID: 13157

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Do not agree with the sole adoption of a scoring system to rank the settlements. We also do not consider that broadband should be considered within this criteria as it is too prescriptive and may incorrectly rank certain sustainable settlements. We consider this represents an inflexible approach to ranking settlements, and specific site circumstances should also be considered. Include consideration of benefits of land located on the edge or between settlements. We agree that Sproughton has been identified as an 'Ipswich Fringe Area', the highest ranking in the settlement hierarchy, as it is able to benefit from the facilities and services provided within Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 13157

Representation ID: 13115

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

As outlined above there is merit in seeking to join the settlement hierarchy across three authorities (Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal).

More details about Rep ID: 13115

Representation ID: 13037

OBJECT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

We completely disagree with the arbitrary scoring system adopted for hierarchy. We would welcome a debate/consultation at Parish level to reconsider the criteria adopted. Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types. Also scoring takes no account of capacity (i.e School sizes etc.) or connectivity in relation to travelling time or facility (distance is not a fair comparison).
In balance to the unfair hierarchy calculations, impact assessments should be adopted in much the same way as they are conducted for large retail facilities, to consider community identity (creeping coalescence) / landscape / public facility / public amenity / visual amenity (design) / infrastructure at a transparent public level.

More details about Rep ID: 13037

Representation ID: 12916

COMMENT Suffolk County Council (Mr. Robert Feakes)

Summary:

The approach taken is logical although two settlements without an early years facility / primary school (Badwell Ash and Coddenham) are identified as core villages. The functional cluster approach can assist with the settlement hierarchy but accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport needs to be considered. Where key infrastructure, such as a primary school, is absent or inaccessible, this might discount a settlement from a particular status in the hierarchy regardless of the 'score', or policy could enable the 'missing' infrastructure provided. Libraries may be a relevant consideration in determining the settlement hierarchy and appropriate levels of growth.

More details about Rep ID: 12916

Representation ID: 12853

OBJECT Tidal Hill Limited represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

Proximity and accessibility to higher order centres (particularly Ipswich with its physical constraints) should play a greater role in determining the sustainability of a settlement and ultimately how much growth it should assume.

Turning to the Settlement Hierarchy Review (2017), it is unclear on what basis Wherstead has been scored. Paragraph 2.3 of the document Indicates points for services can be scored where facilities exist beyond the built-up area of the village, but this does not appear to have been the case in Wherstead. Indeed facilities within the designated built-up area of Wherstead appear to have been ignored.

More details about Rep ID: 12853

Representation ID: 12801

OBJECT East Bergholt Parish Council (Susan Clements)

Summary:

Agree SET2 Option is preferred method (given choice) but this is a static and backward looking approach. Would expect a future context to offer choices as to how the settlement hierarchy will change with the plan policy options as well as the option to retain current hierarchy as set our for the full plan period or express a wish to flex and develop the hierarchy in light of the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 12801

Representation ID: 12745

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

Summary:

The review of the settlement hierarchy and the inclusion of Sproughton and Copdock and Washbrook in the Ipswich Fringe area is welcomed.
However, the settlement scoring system relates solely to access to facilities and services within each village; on this basis Sproughton is identified as a Core Village and Copdock and Washbrook is identified as a hinterland village in the Consultation Document

More details about Rep ID: 12745

Representation ID: 12739

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

o Village status distorted by scoring system, influences development location.
o DON'T AGREE WITH APPROACH TAKEN - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
o No account taken of capacity of a service in scoring (eg Primary School/shops
o Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
o We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 12739

Representation ID: 12652

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

Scoring is based on distance to services and facilities; it should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated. There is no account taken of capacity of a service in scoring for example capacity of the local primary school, number and nature of local shops. Sproughton has been identified as having a post office! Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types. I would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 12652

Representation ID: 12582

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

Scoring is completely arbitrary. No science, conveniently promotes areas with the biggest site allocations. No transparent cooperation or consultation on the criteria. Unacceptable that the most significant process adopted to designate the spread of development has been an untransparent, arbitrary, unconsulted concocted formula. DON'T AGREE WITH APPROACH TAKEN - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated. No account taken of capacity of a service. Positive scoring factors are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly places Sproughton into the main settlement types. * We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 12582

Representation ID: 12465

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)

Summary:

We do not agree with the sole adoption of a scoring system to rank the settlements. We also do not consider that broadband should be considered within this criteria as it is too prescriptive and may incorrectly rank certain sustainable settlements. Specific site circumstances should also be considered. Include consideration of the benefits that certain parcels of land located on the edge or between settlements can have on the wider area.

More details about Rep ID: 12465

Representation ID: 12385

OBJECT Mr David Sylvester represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Kenny Durrant)

Summary:

Generally supported, but it is considered that the settlement hierarchy should be amended, particularly the Ipswich Fringe. To be NPPF compliant the designation amendments should be made. Whilst the Ipswich Fringe Area focuses on existing settlements on the fringe of Ipswich, sites which border the authority area of Ipswich should also be included, as these would form logical extensions to the existing settlement. Consequently, the settlement hierarchy should be amended in order to reflect the above.

More details about Rep ID: 12385

Representation ID: 12378

OBJECT Mrs & Mr Janet & Ivan Carter

Summary:

Little Waldingfield:
A. We should be designated a HAMLET.
B. We have no infrastructure: twice weekly bus service - only in school term. No shops, pub, school.
C. Any development would compromise the conservation area.
D. We have a heritage of over 500 years as an agricultural hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 12378

Representation ID: 12310

OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

We do not agree with the sole adoption of a scoring system to rank the settlements. We consider that this represents an inflexible approach to ranking settlements, and specific site circumstances should also be considered. This would include consideration of the benefits that certain parcels of land located on the edge or between settlements can have on the wider area. We also do not consider that broadband should be considered within this criteria as it is too prescriptive and may incorrectly rank certain sustainable settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 12310

Representation ID: 12255

SUPPORT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 12255

Representation ID: 12225

SUPPORT Marden Homes represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)

Summary:

We support the use of a weighted scoring system to recognise relationships to higher order settlements, key services and supporting services. We consider that this approach correctly acknowledges that the suitability of a settlement for expansion should not be solely concluded based on the key services and facilities that it can provide. Communities in some more rural settlements in particular will have successfully established through relationships with other higher order settlements and by providing supporting services, and would not necessarily therefore be considered for development under Option SET1. This would not support the requirements of the NPPF to maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12225

Representation ID: 12191

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

Summary:

While the proposed criteria approach to ranking settlements in the hierarchy is generally supported, it is considered that Public Houses should be promoted to a key facility, and thus score 2 points rather than 1. This is because Public Houses are often the nodes and centres of a local social network, therefore helping to assist in tackling social isolation. Furthermore, particularly in villages and rural areas, Public Houses play an important role in stimulating community cohesion and social capital by enhancing socio-economic activities, such as communal initiatives and business activities, within communities1. Consequently, they should be valued as key services and facilities within the Joint Local Plan document.

More details about Rep ID: 12191

Representation ID: 12138

COMMENT APT Philpot Ltd represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Richard Clews)

Summary:

In establishing any allocations for Holton St Mary, it is important to recognise its connectivity with strategic road network such as the A12. Whilst there is no disagreement with the conclusions of the hierarchy, it is important to recognise that some settlements will have greater access to the county towns than a straight-line distance would suggest, simply by virtue of travel time as a reflection of the nature of a road, rail and bus connection. It is considered that a more nuanced approach to identifying the more sustainable settlements within a hierarchy and the functional relationships between settlements within the districts should be applied to the next stage of the Local Plan and in the identification of suitable site allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 12138

Representation ID: 12125

OBJECT Mr Herbert Godbold, Ms Olive Godbold, Mr Stephen Baker and Diana Johnson represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Kenny Durrant)

Summary:

Proposed criteria is generally supported, it is considered that Public Houses should be promoted to a key facility, and thus score 2 points rather than 1. Public Houses are often the nodes and centres of a local social network, therefore helping to assist in tackling social isolation. Consequently, they should be valued as key services and facilities within the Joint Local Plan document.

It is agreed that Option SET2, Key & Supporting Services, is the most appropriate. Such an approach enables settlements to be evaluated in a wider context, therefore providing a more accurate indication of their sustainability. Consequently, in its current state, the Settlement Hierarchy is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 12125

Representation ID: 12101

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Gladman broadly support the proposed settlement hierarchy, however it is important that any associated policies are not overly restrictive. They must, for example, enable rural settlements to contribute towards the delivery of the wider development needs of the area over the plan period and secure their continued sustainability.

More details about Rep ID: 12101

Representation ID: 12083

OBJECT Ms Rosemary Anne Welburn & Mr Robert Gordon Stiff represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Mr Kenny Durrant)

Summary:

Approach is generally supported, but it is considered that Public Houses should be promoted to a key facility, thus scoring 2 points rather than 1. Public Houses are often the nodes and centres of a local social network, tackling social isolation. They stimulate community cohesion and social capital by enhancing socioeconomic activities, such as communal initiatives and business activates within communities.

Agreed that SET2, is the most appropriate. Such an approach enables settlements to be evaluated in a wider context, therefore providing a more accurate indication of their sustainability. Consequently, in its current state, the Settlement Hierarchy is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 12083

Representation ID: 12074

OBJECT The Thornhill Settlement (John Davie-Thornhill) represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Melissa Reynolds)

Summary:

Public Houses and Village Halls should be promoted to be key facilities when assessing the settlement hierarchy (2 points rather than 1). Option SET2, Key & Supporting Services, is the most appropriate method for drafting a revised settlement hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 12074

Representation ID: 12031

OBJECT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

We think that it is important to point out that whilst sites in the Ipswich Fringe Area
may well be physically located on the edges of the county town, in terms of
accessibility and sustainability they might not always present as good opportunities
as sites on the edges of the market towns and larger villages, which are located only
short distances from a concentration of facilities and services.

Stowmarket and Sudbury are substantially larger than the other four urban areas and market towns. Consequently, from a sustainability point of view we consider that Stowmarket and Sudbury should be elevated to site within a new category of 'Major Market Towns'.

More details about Rep ID: 12031

Representation ID: 11829

OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

o Village status distorted by scoring system, influences development location.
o DON'T AGREE WITH APPROACH TAKEN - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
o No account taken of capacity of a service in scoring (eg Primary School/shops)
o Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
o We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 11829

Representation ID: 11765

COMMENT Amber REI represented by Pegasus Group (Mr David Onions)

Summary:

Needs to be a greater explanation of how the settlement hierarchy and functional clusters relate to one another. Need for this to be explained more fully to understand what has priority in which circumstances. Support Eye as a urban and market town. However the settlement hierarchy should make plain that the Ipswich fringe is not considered superior in policy terms as a location for new development in comparison to those settlements identified as urban areas and market towns. Recognition should be given to other factors, such as significant sites outside of existing settlements which could have a significant role in either supporting services in nearby villages, as envisaged in the functional clusters strategy. Needs to be co-ordinated within any policy defining settlement hierarchy.

Further category could be added consisting of previously developed sites with the opportunity to provide significant planning benefits (Haughley Park)

More details about Rep ID: 11765

Representation ID: 11759

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Hierarchy
*Village status distorted by scoring system, influences development location.
*Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.
*DON'T AGREE WITH APPROACH TAKEN - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
*No account taken of capacity of a service in scoring (eg Primary School/shops (Sproughton identified as having a P.O.!)
*Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
*We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 11759

Representation ID: 11671

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

I refer to Chilton Parish Council's letter dated 10 November dealing with the inclusion of part of the Parish of Chilton is included within Sudbury. I disagree. Chilton needs to have separate recognition as a parish and I consider it should be included as a core village with Great Waldingfield, Long Melford and Acton. The hierarchy should be amended to reflect the above. It is totally unclear from JLP what is intended to occur to the remainder of the Parish of Chilton which is not included in Sudbury.

More details about Rep ID: 11671

Representation ID: 11590

OBJECT Mr & Mrs N Britnell represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

In principle the scoring system is supported. However it appears very crude and overly simplistic. A single point difference to determine a Core Village or Hinterland Village is too finite and a range should be introduced. Scoring does not acknowledge the physical and environmental constraints in villages - some form of weighting is required. Application has led to many more Core Villages in Babergh, and some excluded despite the presence of local employment opportunities. More Core Villages could result in dispersal of development leading to unintended consequences which do not promote the principles of sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 11590

Representation ID: 11540

OBJECT Annette Powell

Summary:

Scoring criteria is completely arbitrary. No real science here and it conveniently promotes areas with the biggest site allocations which is viewed with some suspicion. No transparent cooperation or consultation on these arbitrary criteria's scoring systems. Unacceptable that it is untransparent, arbitrary, unconsulted concocted formula. No account take of capacity of a service. Scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated. Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence, unfairly places Sproughton into the main settlement types. Would support scoring criteria to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 11540

Representation ID: 11530

SUPPORT Thorndon Parish Council (Amanda Thompson)

Summary:

The method of ranking the settlements based on locally available facilities seems eminently sensible as it results in directly measurable results.

More details about Rep ID: 11530

Representation ID: 11519

COMMENT Mr S. E. Gray represented by Savills UK Ltd (Ms Lynette Swinburne)

Summary:

Our client agrees with the preference for Option SET2 which presents an opportunity to understand the interrelationship between places, which is applicable in relation to villages such as Tostock, which whilst having its own services, is also in close proximity to those in the nearby settlements of Norton, Thurston, Elmswell, Drinkstone and Woolpit, which are less than 2.5 miles away, as well as Bury St Edmunds itself, which is approximately 8.5 miles to the west.

More details about Rep ID: 11519

Representation ID: 11407

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS does not support a rigid formulaic approach to settlement hierarchy. It is necessary to have a working knowledge of these settlements to rank them appropriately and consider their potential to accommodate additional development. We have only considered the settlements on the Shotley Peninsula.
Beyond that, we are concerned that the ranking of the smaller settlements does not give sufficient weight to their potential to accommodate development - especially if the settlement is surrounded by a designated landscape or accessed by wholly inadequate roads.

More details about Rep ID: 11407

Representation ID: 11323

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Our village status distorted by the scoring system, which in turn influences development location.
* I don't agree with approach taken - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; it should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
* No account is taken of capacity of a service in scoring eg Primary School/shops.
* Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
* We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 11323

Representation ID: 11301

OBJECT La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs N Wright)

Summary:

More details about Rep ID: 11301

Representation ID: 11219

OBJECT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

We consider that the approach is too simplistic and does not, for example, reflect the very different characteristics of the large number of core villages. There is a fundamental difference between being the largest village in an area and having local facilities and service, compared to being well placed for growth by having good access to a range of employment opportunities. We suggest that these two issues are currently conflated and should be separated. In creating a hierarchy for development, employment opportunities and transport links should be given a much higher weighting than currently.

More details about Rep ID: 11219

Representation ID: 11195

OBJECT Mr Nigel Roberts

Summary:

I agree the SET2 option is the preferred method (given constrained choice) but this is a static and backward looking approach. I would expect the approach to factor in a future context and offer choices as to how the settlement hierarchy will change with the plan policy options. I would also suggest the need to consider the choice between retaining the current hierarchy as set our for the full plan period versus flexing and developing the hierarchy in light of the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 11195

Representation ID: 11169

SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

Broadly agree.

More details about Rep ID: 11169

Representation ID: 10985

SUPPORT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council agrees with the proposed criteria approach to rank settlements in the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 10985

Representation ID: 10905

SUPPORT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 10905

Representation ID: 10819

OBJECT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* Village status distorted by scoring system.
* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village.
* Do not agree with stance- scoring based on distance to services/facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
* No account taken of capacity of service in scoring (eg School/shops)
* Positive scoring factors in Hierarchy assessment actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. erosion of communities' individuality)therefore fly in face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into main settlement types.
* Support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 10819

Representation ID: 10767

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

SET2 support.
However how frequently would it be reviewed to accommodate changes, e.g. loss of shops or local school?

More details about Rep ID: 10767

Representation ID: 10728

SUPPORT Brent Eleigh Parish Council (Mr William Grosvenor)

Summary:

Councillors broadly agree with the proposed criteria approach to the ranking of settlements and support the proposed settlement hierarchy. The answers therefore to questions 11 and 12 are YES.

More details about Rep ID: 10728

Representation ID: 10679

SUPPORT Thorcross Builders Limited (A. Goodwin) represented by Springfields Planning and Development Limited (Mr Chris Loon)

Summary:

A review of settlements based upon a weighted scoring system recognising relationships to higher order settlements, key services and supporting services is considered an appropriate approach in helping define a settlement hierarchy, as set out at Option SET2

More details about Rep ID: 10679

Representation ID: 10668

OBJECT Stratford St Mary Parish Council (William Davies)

Summary:

No account has been taken to the population of a village when deciding which category it falls into and I would have thought that this would be as big, if not a much bigger, criteria for deciding this.

Stratford St Mary has a population of 701. Compare this to the following core villages: East Bergholt 2765; Brantham 2566; Capel St Mary 2847;
How on earth can you compare us with much larger core villages...surely we are more in keeping with the following hinterland villages: Raydon 507; Polstead 851; Bentley 776

Surely this information is more relevant to the status of a village than how many bus stops we have or how many telegraph poles etc etc?

More details about Rep ID: 10668

Representation ID: 10661

OBJECT Aldham Parish Council (Mr Jonathan Ralph)

Summary:

The Internet Connectivity criterion of "up to (a given speed)" should redefined. "Up to" is a widely debased measurement which is rarely achieved in practice. We suggest the definition should relate specifically to "download speed" and measurement should relate to officially recorded speeds actually achieved (not aspirational marketing objectives).

More details about Rep ID: 10661

Representation ID: 10619

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Do not agree
Ipswich is quite small and yet it is felt justified in proposing to build a disproportionate amount of housing around its boundary which encroaches on the outlying villages around Ipswich.
Sproughton wishes to stay as a separate village and not classified as "Ipswich Fringe Area"

More details about Rep ID: 10619

Representation ID: 10614

OBJECT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* Scoring criteria is completely arbitrary as is the special distribution. There is no real since here and it conveniently promotes areas with the biggest site allocations which is viewed with some suspicion.
* There has been no transparent cooperation or consultation on these arbitrary critieria's and scorring sytems that have then been imposed.
* It is unacceptable that the most significant process adopted to designate the spread of development has been an untransparent, arbitrary, unconsulted concocted formula.
* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.
* DON'T AGREE WITH APPROACH TAKEN - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
* No account taken of capacity of a service in scoring (eg Primary School/shops (Sproughton identified as having a P.O.!)

More details about Rep ID: 10614

Representation ID: 10608

OBJECT Harrow Estates (Miss Cindy Wan)

Summary:

Significant number of Core Villages. A number of these are currently situated across two separate tiers of the settlement hierarchy.

It is appropriate to focus development in the most sustainable villages within the Core Village category and there could therefore be merit in creating a further tier within the hierarchy to distinguish these. For example, those villages with a score of 26 or more in the Topic Paper -Settlement Hierarchy Review August 2017 could be classified as Primary Service Villages and those with a score of 25 or less could be classed as Secondary Service Villages.

More details about Rep ID: 10608

Representation ID: 10566

OBJECT Hopkins Homes Ltd represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

We are in broad agreement with both the methodology and the eventual hierarchy. However, we feel that accessibility should play a greater role in determining the sustainability of a settlement and ultimately how much growth it should assume.

More details about Rep ID: 10566

Representation ID: 10553

SUPPORT Countryside Properties (Mrs Emma Woods)

Summary:

The proposed criteria based approach to rank settlements in the hierarchy is broadly supported in so far as it provides a basis to designate settlements within the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 10553

Representation ID: 10516

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Our village status distorted by the scoring system, which in turn influences development location.
* No account is taken of capacity of a service in scoring eg Primary School/shops
* Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
* We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 10516

Representation ID: 10412

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Our village status distorted by the scoring system, which in turn influences development location.
* No account is taken of capacity of a service in scoring eg Primary School/shops
* Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
* We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 10412

Representation ID: 10245

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Whilst, overall, we agree with the Councils' proposed criteria to rank settlements in the hierarchy, we do not agree with the sole adoption of a scoring system to rank the settlements

More details about Rep ID: 10245

Representation ID: 9984

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Our village status distorted by the scoring system, which in turn influences development location.
* I don't agree with approach taken - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; it should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
* No account is taken of capacity of a service in scoring eg Primary School/shops
* Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
* Support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 9984

Representation ID: 9909

COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

Accept the need to review settlements. Welcome the use of services measured by points. Needs clear correlation between services which meet current needs and those which provide opportunity for further development. If a school is near to capacity it should be awarded no/fewer points than a school with potential to grow. If a village is designated as Core with only one shop then system needs to be reviewed. Larger weighting to be given to villages which have more services than to those where you must travel 5km to reach them. If limited employment, should not be designated Core as development will lead to congestion and pollution. At a distance of over 1 km private transport will be used. Consideration to be given to existing cycle routes.

More details about Rep ID: 9909

Representation ID: 9845

OBJECT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

We consider that there are not enough classes of settlement in the hierarchy. There seems to be a high number of Core Villages. Considering the Settlement Hierarchy Review, it seems that there could be two levels of Core Village, with some clearly more 'self contained' and therefore sustainable than others. Hinterland Villages
seem more clear-cut. If the Settlement Hierarchy is going to be the basis for distribution of housing, and not the basis for a settlement strategy that can consider and reflect other constraints and characteristics, the Core Villages should be re-visited and be divided into two categories reflecting the actual characteristics, services and facilities available to that settlement and not necessarily include proximity to a town as the latter could lead to a loss of identity, suburbanisation and/or coalescence of that settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 9845

Representation ID: 9810

COMMENT Merton College, Oxford represented by Savills (Mr James Yeoman)

Summary:

On the information provided to date, it is considered that Option SET2 - Key & Supporting Services is an appropriate mechanism to review settlements based upon a weighted scoring system recognising relationships to higher order settlements, key services and supporting facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 9810

Representation ID: 9702

COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

Whilst agreeing in broad terms with the criteria approach it is important to ensure proportional development and to that end we believe that village size/population should play a significant role in the calculation. Additionally penalizing villages, via the points system, for being located close to market towns risks overdevelopment and destroying the very character of Suffolk that we seek to preserve. Through all this we must remember the reason we chose to live in this beautiful part of the world and ensure we improve and preserve it for future generations.

More details about Rep ID: 9702

Representation ID: 9699

SUPPORT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Generally yes

More details about Rep ID: 9699

Representation ID: 9638

OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

Village status distorted by scoring system, influences development location.
I do not agree with the stance taken - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
I would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 9638

Representation ID: 9520

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

I do not agree with the methodology for categorising the settlements, as it takes no account of the local patterns that formed such a valued part of the original approach to patterns in the existing Local Plan.

Without studying in detail the Topic Paper : Settlement Hierarchy Review 2017; it is impossible to reliably comment on either options on page 24. SET1 and SET2. The council currently has a staff which has limited experience of the District - the original staff have all left- and has no authority experience or credibility to give "options" to the public.

More details about Rep ID: 9520

Representation ID: 9427

SUPPORT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 9427

Representation ID: 9375

OBJECT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

The terminology is confusing. We question some of the scoring and think the absolute point system has not worked well as not all services and facilities are equal. We would propose sticking with a simpler scheme that looks at settlement size/density and key services only.

More details about Rep ID: 9375

Representation ID: 9351

OBJECT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

- Account to be taken of the capacity of each Key and Supporting Service.
-Scoring based on distance. Measurement based on time to access facilities would be more realistic.
-Accessing neighbouring facilities in Sproughton would nearly always require the use of a car due to the lack of sustainable alternatives.
-Sproughton is classed as a "Core Village" in Table 2 (p6) of Topic Paper, but as a "Hinterland Village" in the Appendix (Services and Facilities Matrix).
-There is no post office in Sproughton, yet it scores 1.
-Overall the status of Sproughton is unclear and the actual facilities overstated.

More details about Rep ID: 9351

Representation ID: 9252

SUPPORT W H Jardine represented by Phase 2 Planning & Development Ltd (Mr Kevin Coleman)

Summary:

Support for Option SET 2, specifically in terms of recognising the interlationship between towns and their hinterlands, and specific support for identification of Creeting St Mary as a Core Village.

More details about Rep ID: 9252

Representation ID: 9188

OBJECT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Do NOT agree. In principle, the approach seems appropriate. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether account has been taken of the capacity of each Key and Supporting Service to deliver services in a community, or whether it is simply the presence of such services that has been scored when compiling the hierarchy.

Scoring for the hierarchy based purely on measured distance (i.e. 5 km) does not make sense. In many places, the time it would take to actually travel that distance would preclude the use of the services and facilities that might be there. A measurement based on time to access facilities would be more realistic. Visiting neighbouring facilities in Sproughton would nearly always require a car.

More details about Rep ID: 9188

Representation ID: 9140

OBJECT Mr Bay Knowles represented by Keymer Cavendish Limited (Mr Edward Keymer)

Summary:

Partially agree to joint settlement hierarchy but 'Hinterland Villages' sound like they are in the Hindu Kush.
For instance, Tostock, which has a church and a pub, also boasts a range of services within 5 miles.

The Emerging Planning White Paper is urging a more enlightened attitude to development in villages otherwise no housing is available for young people born and brought up in them. Intermediate Villages should be another classification and Tostock should be one of them. Illustrative concept plan is attached which is an examples of how a village such as Tostock could accommodate a high quality development.

More details about Rep ID: 9140

Representation ID: 9039

OBJECT C Joyce

Summary:

Don't agree that Copdock and Wasbrook can be considered within the Ipswich fringe area. It is a separate village and should only be classed a a hinterland village. There are very few facilities within the village, most need to be accessed by using transport and the bus service is infrequent.

More details about Rep ID: 9039

Representation ID: 9000

SUPPORT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Yes there needs to be a rank system - but this needs to be adhered to and actually be invoked when looking at applications

More details about Rep ID: 9000

Representation ID: 8967

OBJECT Mr Andrew Sterling

Summary:

This approach fails with regard to substantial extra traffic generation which may be reasonable with regard to particular settlements, but when each settlement is part of a 'chain' of villages along one rural road which is in effect a cul de sac - as in the case of the Shotley B1456 - the acrued impact on residents on the small settlement at the Ipswich end (The Strand at Wherstead) is massively disproportionate to that small settlement.
Traffic generation and access - along with a regard to air quality - should be built into point scoring.

More details about Rep ID: 8967

Representation ID: 8935

OBJECT Nellie Dickson, Sworders on behalf of Pye Charitable Settlement represented by Sworders (Miss Nellie Dickson)

Summary:

Object/ Comment

We support the methodology adopted however we would argue that Haughley Green should be considered under Hamlets and Countryside Category. Haughley Green has been allocated a proposed new draft settlement boundary and therefore it is only appropriate that it should be included in the hierarchy list. Haughley Green was defined in the Local Plan 1998 as a countryside village, it is therefore reasonable to request its inclusion as a Hamlet in the settlement hierarchy list.

More details about Rep ID: 8935

Representation ID: 8904

SUPPORT Mrs Jessica Fleming

Summary:

Support with caveat that flexibility be built into the system, and allowance for future changes

More details about Rep ID: 8904

Representation ID: 8746

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

I suggest another employment criterion - businesses that attract (very) local employees - a bit like agriculture of days gone by - promoting those areas where employment isn't just close by, but on the doorstep - i.e. not a number of employees criterion, but a provision of employment within the community

More details about Rep ID: 8746

Representation ID: 8613

SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

Considered the best option

More details about Rep ID: 8613

Representation ID: 8588

OBJECT Mr David Pettitt represented by Keymer Cavendish Limited (Philippa Hull)

Summary:

Agree to joint settlement hierarchy but need for new classification 'Intermediate Villages'

More details about Rep ID: 8588

Representation ID: 8512

OBJECT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

Agree with vision.
However needs to recognise the impact of technology. Electric cars, carbon neutral hosing, home based working, distance learning and the availability of all manner of services delivered to the door and via the internet, means that small villages and hamlets are fast becoming fully sustainable and this needs to be recognised within the plan.
The contribution strong and healthy communities makes towards sustainability and cohesion needs to be recognised more fully with in the plan.
Economic development within rural areas needs to be provided for and encouraged to develop small rural businesses, both farm and village/hamlet based

More details about Rep ID: 8512

Representation ID: 8464

OBJECT Claydon Parish Council (Mrs Gail Cornish)

Summary:

Claydon Parish council would object to Claydon being classified at Ipswich fringes.

At present we are a core village on the outskirts of Ipswich and it is vital of preserve green fields between Claydon and Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 8464

Representation ID: 8261

OBJECT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

While the Council agrees with ranking settlements in a hierarchy it recommends that in order to qualify as a Core Village as settlement should score at least 20 points with a minimum of 6 points in the Banking/Post Office/Retail section.

More details about Rep ID: 8261

Representation ID: 8176

SUPPORT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

Yes, SET 2 is realistic. People generally travel to access services and facilities in their surrounding area, some further away than others. Since Suffolk is such a rural county most people living in villages/hamlets and the countryside have their own car, almost as a necessity. It is unrealistic to suggest that development should only be allowed where there is regular public transport - it just doesn't happen in most of rural Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 8176

Representation ID: 8089

OBJECT Ms Lesley Paris

Summary:

No objection to a criteria approach as such, but better definitions of each one are needed - Convenience Store is too vague.
Ignoring settlement population is wrong, this should be included to give a better idea of overall picture of a village.
Some of the larger villages are to have significant new housing so their impact needs to be taken into account.

More details about Rep ID: 8089

Representation ID: 8015

COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)

Summary:

I agree with the council's preferred option of key and supporting services, although reference to the supporting material on how the settlements were scored and ranked showed significant discrepancies. The schedule of settlements in each category would be more useful if separated into the two districts, since the questions of housing distribution is so divided.

More details about Rep ID: 8015

Representation ID: 8004

OBJECT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

The methodology has weaknesses giving rise to anomalous situations - looks only at facilities and proximity to larger settlements rather than accessibility. This is not in accordance with the principles of sustainability as set out in the NPPF.
The weighting of the points system seems arbitrarily decided upon - not based on accepted standard approach.
Following sample checks (Mellis and Stoke by Nayland) we note errors in the services and distances from a town identified in the Services and Facilities Matrix. We urge that these are verified especially where the scoring is close to a threshold.

More details about Rep ID: 8004

Representation ID: 7919

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

The criteria are not really clear ,especially in respect to broadband reception and bus routes.
Tattingstone does not believe it is a hinterland village. Tattingstone is comprised of 3[three] distinct areas: Tattingstone The Heath, Tattingstone Church, Tattingstone White Horse [see your own maps] separated by open countryside. Using your criteria Tattingstone as a whole only scores 9/10, the facilities in each area vary considerably and would in each case score less than 10. Tattingsone would propose that we are classed as hamlet and countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 7919

Representation ID: 7783

OBJECT Mr John Foster

Summary:

Better ways of approaching this issue are being presented in other documentation including the BAPTC submission.

More details about Rep ID: 7783

Representation ID: 7763

SUPPORT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

Support the proposal

More details about Rep ID: 7763

Representation ID: 7735

OBJECT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

the categorisation of settlements needs to be more sophisticated to allow for change in facilities and status during the plan period., up or down. Gt Finborough for example fails to meet the definition of a Core Village by 1 point in the council's settlement hierarchy review document. A different calibration/change to an individual service or facility can make the difference between being in one category or the next. For example, a clients current application proposes contributions towards public transport which will add to the the existing bus services for the village

More details about Rep ID: 7735

Representation ID: 7662

OBJECT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

See answer to Q12.

More details about Rep ID: 7662

Representation ID: 7596

OBJECT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

The approach is over simplistic in that it does not appear to take account of the actual availability / accessibility of the services being offered in any community. The accuracy of the information with respect to services is also questionable; for example - Sproughton does not have a post office and has not done so for a number of years.

More details about Rep ID: 7596

Representation ID: 7349

OBJECT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

The approach is over simplistic in that it does not appear to take account of the actual availability / accessibility of the services being offered in any community. The accuracy of the information with respect to services is also questionable; for example - Sproughton does not have a post office and has not done so for a number of years.

More details about Rep ID: 7349

Representation ID: 7327

OBJECT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

The Ipswich fringe is not well defined, including why villages are included. Is it simply on proximity as the crow flies, or have other factors been included. Some villages included in the fringe have few amenities or have poor infrastructure (lack of shops, capacity of schools). They are not suitable for urbanisation unless we are surrendering to high denisty, poor quality of life housing which will become urban ghettos.

More details about Rep ID: 7327

Representation ID: 7287

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

No account taken of the capacity of the service scored in the heirarchy. Conflict between different parts of the document - Sproughton classified as Core/Hinterland and Fringe!! Interaction between neighbouring settlements is more complex than stated in the document - Sproughton does not just face Ipswich but Bramford, Copdock, Hadleigh as well. Time take to access services is relevant - it is quicker to go to Bramford Co-op than drive into Ipswich to Sainsburys for shopping.

More details about Rep ID: 7287

Representation ID: 7084

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

Whilst broadly supportive of this approach there also needs to be a correlation between the size and population of the village and the number and types of key services available

More details about Rep ID: 7084

Representation ID: 7054

OBJECT Mrs Dianne Wright

Summary:

Cockfield's scoring as a Core village needs to be re-assessed. The services/facilities scoring appears to be inaccurate in a number of ways. A re-categorisation would put the scoring to around 13 points placing it into a Hinterland village. This would place it in the same category as similar villages in the area, for example nearby Lawshall.

It is made up of a number of greens. One of these greens, Cross Green, is listed in various previous planning documents as a hamlet. Therefore it would appear to be contrary, for this Local Plan, for it not to be separately assessed.

More details about Rep ID: 7054

Representation ID: 7004

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

No, though I accept there is a need for something.
The scoring and criteria appear unsound and promote the relationship with nearby settlements too heavily. Villages with the greatest risk of loosing their identity are the ones closest to other settlements. Under the NPPF they should be protected from Creeping Coalescence but this Hierarchy process ignores that and promotes these very villages into the highest scoring areas of spacial distribution.
It is coincidently noted that the combination of Hierarchy and Spacial Distribution also has some correlation with the villages threatened with the largest development sites

More details about Rep ID: 7004

Representation ID: 6981

COMMENT Brome and Oakley Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

In the case of Brome & Oakley parish, we object to the criteria used to stipulate that the villages are categorised as Hinterland Villages. This based on erroneous information which puts the villages into this category. Brome & Oakley score 7 but has appeared in the 9-17 point category (Settlement Hierarchy Review). This impacts on development to some growth targets according to category designations.The villages have 2 hotels within the boundaries. The residents have no access to shops, doctors, or banks within boundaries of the parish. The residents rely on the local core towns of Eye, and Diss in Norfolk.

More details about Rep ID: 6981

Representation ID: 6925

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

GP surgeries/schools does not necessarily have places. Without places it should be 0.
Libraries should be rated 2 as are essential for lower income residents.
Substantial culture and leisure elements such as cinema, theatre, arts centre, rugby ground, football ground, major event location should equal 2.
Weighting looks like a good idea providing it takes into account how long it takes to get to centre of higher order settlements and impact on infrastructure e.g. getting into Ipswich by car or bus from the outskirts is slower than catching a train there from Needham and Stowmarket and then requires parking spaces.

More details about Rep ID: 6925

Representation ID: 6908

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

The Parish Council supports criteria SET2 which ranks settlements based upon a weighted scoring system recognising relationships to higher order settlements, key services and supporting services

More details about Rep ID: 6908

Representation ID: 6789

OBJECT Dr John Webb

Summary:

Measuring distances to neighbouring villages or towns in miles is misleading to say the least. From Sproughton it is often quicker to get to Hadleigh than to Ipswich, due to frequent congestion on all of the roads leading to Ipswich. Typical journey time would be a better criterion.

More details about Rep ID: 6789

Representation ID: 6720

SUPPORT mrs Netty Verkroost

Summary:

I agree

More details about Rep ID: 6720

Representation ID: 6558

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

No I don't agree. Village status influences development location. Sproughton has been lassed as both CORE and HINTERLAND....how can it be both?? A scoring based on distances to services and facilities is unrealistic given the road situation and lack of public transport. Time taken would be more accurate. Sproughton doesnot have a Poat Office so how can it be scored as if it did???

More details about Rep ID: 6558

Representation ID: 6425

COMMENT Ms Carole Newman

Summary:

Criteria fine in principle but information can be inaccurate as is the case with Mendham and Withersdale Street.(Even though the information is allegedly taken from 2017 audit) Another issue is that Mendham and Withersdale have been linked together for assessment purposes - although they are one parish they are in fact two distinct village, a few miles apart. They do not have the same facilities and are not within walking distance for the facilities to be 'shared'. Their broadband connection is also different. the village of Withersdale does not have access to superfast broadband.

More details about Rep ID: 6425

Representation ID: 6420

OBJECT Mr Robin Coates

Summary:

I object to the classifications as Wherstead appears both in 'Hamlet & Countryside' and in 'Ipswich Fringe'. This is obviously confusing and the criteria must be clarified to prevent duplication.

More details about Rep ID: 6420

Representation ID: 6406

COMMENT Ms Christine Fogg

Summary:

The proposed criteria are not transparent, clearly defined or easily interpreted. For example, convenience store seems to be applied to small shops on garage forecourts and Co-op stores in the same way. This is not appropriate. Anything open to subjective interpretation is unacceptable in any method using point scoring.

I believe the information used to score the hierarchy for plans tin 2019 is based on old intelligence. This is unacceptable. The criteria must be robust, honest and up to date to be meaningful or relevant.

More details about Rep ID: 6406

Representation ID: 6362

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q11 The data used have too many errors. Presence of a GP surgery or school does not necessarily mean there are places. Without places it would go from 2 to 0. Libraries should be included and rated 2 as these are often essential for lower income residents. For cultural and leisure aspects maybe substantial elements such as cinema, theatre, arts centre, rugby ground, football ground, major event location could equal 2.
There should be a greater focus on overall sustainability.

More details about Rep ID: 6362

Representation ID: 6337

OBJECT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

As the majority of the Parish of Barham is rural we would expect Barham to be excluded from the Ipswich Fringe and see it only as a Hinterland Parish.

More details about Rep ID: 6337

Representation ID: 6284

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6284

Representation ID: 6272

SUPPORT Webb & Son (Combs) Ltd represented by Carter Jonas (Ben Ward)

Summary:

The methodology and approach to ranking settlements in the hierarchy are sound and compliant with the evidence base and national planning policy.

More details about Rep ID: 6272

Representation ID: 6214

OBJECT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

Whilst use of a hierarchy is fine the practice needs refining.
The assessment is done by Parish but the identified settlements are not on a Parish basis, what are you acually measuring if an an identified settlement does not have a service available elsewhere in the Parish?
Some account should be taken of the current size of the settlement, not just its services. Broadband is important but all communities (though not all properties) will have superfast soon so any diffences between settlements are of timing and so should not be included (other vital services -water, gas, electricity are not included)

More details about Rep ID: 6214

Representation ID: 6204

OBJECT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Village status appears to influence development location. Sproughton is classed as a "core" and also as a "hinterland village" - it can't be both!
A scoring system is used to determine hierarchy, based on distance to services and facilities but should be based on travel time to those services and facilities. With busy lives, travel time is likely to be a determined factor of choice not distance.

Comment - Sproughton does not have a post office!

More details about Rep ID: 6204

Representation ID: 6064

SUPPORT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

The use of settlement hierarchies in Local Plans is in our view a sensible and appropriate approach to take in circumstances where there are a large number of disparate settlements and where the service and facility bases of those settlements will affect their position with the hierarchy. Both authorities have used the settlement hierarchy approach before and we see no good reason as to why there should be any call to departure from such an approach.

More details about Rep ID: 6064

Representation ID: 6032

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* DON'T AGREE WITH APPROACH TAKEN - scoring based on distance to services and facilities; should be based on travel time as accessibility overstated.
* No account taken of capacity of a service in scoring (eg Primary School/shops (Sproughton identified as having a P.O.!)
* Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against Creeping Coalescence (i.e. the erosion of as communities' individuality) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types.
* We would support reconsideration of the scoring criteria adopted to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 6032

Representation ID: 5839

SUPPORT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5839

Representation ID: 5836

SUPPORT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC agrees

More details about Rep ID: 5836

Representation ID: 5833

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Yes there needs to be a rank system - but this needs to be adhered to and actually be invoked when looking at applications

More details about Rep ID: 5833

Representation ID: 5798

COMMENT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

The model illustrated needs to be far more sophisticated and robust. e.g. Counting bus stops is only of use if there are sufficient buses, available routes and times of service to go with them. A Doctors Surgery or a School may already be under pressure and unable to recruit. A very few (fully staffed) village shops are not a good indicator of potential employment. One SME in the immediate area dependent on specialised knowledge and skills is not going to provide employment for dozens (possibly hundreds) of new people.

More details about Rep ID: 5798

Representation ID: 5655

OBJECT mr simon downey

Summary:

The classification which (as others have noted) lists Copdock and Washbrook in two categories - both Hinterland and "Ipswich Fringe" is confusing - particularly when trying to subsequently assess which approach the authority should take on the options for patterns of growth.
The overriding view of local residents is - based on the consultations own method for categorisation by services and supporting services is that the village is a Hinterland village and not Ipswich Fringe. The categorisation therefore needs reassessing and clarification.

More details about Rep ID: 5655

Representation ID: 5642

SUPPORT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5642

Representation ID: 5564

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

The criteria approach has clearly failed in respect of Copdock & Washbrook village, we are a Hinterland Village and most definitely not part of the Ipswich Fringe!

More details about Rep ID: 5564

Representation ID: 5535

OBJECT Mrs Louise Carman

Summary:

I do not agree that Copdock and Washbrook should e classed as Ipswich fringe. It is a small village with little infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 5535

Representation ID: 5448

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council agree with this fair and transparent approach.

More details about Rep ID: 5448

Representation ID: 5190

OBJECT Mr Stephen Fisher

Summary:

the terminology used within the hierarchy is confusing. By your ranking Beyton is a hamlet.

I propose a simpler scheme that looks at settlement size/density and key services only, or at the very least taking the individual circumstances of each village more into account.

More details about Rep ID: 5190

Representation ID: 5154

OBJECT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

BDC express a preference for SET2. We disagree and prefer SET1, which is more robust and transparent; a weighted scoring system is unduly complicated and would not therefore be accessible to the communities concerned.

More details about Rep ID: 5154

Representation ID: 5105

COMMENT Mrs Rosemary Jones

Summary:

Yes but Babergh and Mid Suffolk are very different and should be defined separately.

More details about Rep ID: 5105

Representation ID: 5104

SUPPORT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

The criteria approach is important. The weightings given to settlement attributes as set out in the topic paper Settlement Hierarchy are sensible.

More details about Rep ID: 5104

Representation ID: 4957

OBJECT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

The criteria included seem to serve as a means to increase the number of Core Villages, well beyond any reality. Some of these should have been given higher value and others lower value. This would have reflected relative importance better. For example Doctors Surgery, Chemist have massive relative value in real terms. How can a Primary School be worth double a Secondary School?

More details about Rep ID: 4957

Representation ID: 4955

SUPPORT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

We agree with the proposed criteria.

More details about Rep ID: 4955

Representation ID: 4889

OBJECT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

The proposed criteria for ranking hierarchy are not unreasonable, but fails to take account of the density of occupation in villages and parishes. In Nedging with Naughton 70% of the dwellings are in or close to Nedging Tye. The remaining properties are spread sparsely out to the extremities of the
Parish and exist in what can only be designated as Countryside. The plan
should accommodate this and similar inconsistencies to avoid inappropriate
development being allowed.

More details about Rep ID: 4889

Representation ID: 4871

COMMENT Dr Tanna represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

It is important to not solely focus on the facilities located within a Settlement Boundary but to also recognise relationships to services in nearby settlements when deciding on the ranking. If a settlement has limited services and facilities but is well connected to utilise the services in a nearby settlement, this needs to be recognised.

More details about Rep ID: 4871

Representation ID: 4592

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 4592

Representation ID: 4590

OBJECT Mr Iain Maxwell

Summary:

Using Key Facilities only is too simplistic, should also include population to give more rounded assessment of each settlement.

Include Future housing allocations/permissions where relevant as these will increase population and therefore increase demand for more facilities/services. They might even push some of the larger "core villages" into the Town/Urban area category (e.g Stowupland).

Need more clarity and definition of some criteria, e.g. Convenience Store - should not include small shops as part of a fuel station that are only used for standby and not regular shopping. Same with "Newsagents". All are part of one business outlet not three

More details about Rep ID: 4590

Representation ID: 4562

SUPPORT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 4562

Representation ID: 4497

OBJECT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

The criteria provides a heavy ranking for bus stops. It should be ranked on accessibility and frequency of service. For example - In Barking, there is one bus stop with 3 buses a day in each direction to/from Ipswich only. The bus stop is at one far end of the village with no footpath serving it so is not a genuine service available to all residents. 2 points is too heavily rated. This facility in Barking does not warrant 2 points. I point maximum.

More details about Rep ID: 4497

Representation ID: 4491

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

Hierarchy needs to be established. Some of the detail is not current e.g. Alpheton does not have a
service garage.

More details about Rep ID: 4491

Representation ID: 4471

SUPPORT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The Parish Council agrees with the proposed criteria approach to rank settlements in the hierarchy. It should be noted that some of the data used for Kersey is inaccurate.

More details about Rep ID: 4471

Representation ID: 4223

OBJECT Christina Galvin

Summary:

The approach is too simplistic. Each village/area should be independently assessed for ability to grow.
The existence of a school/doctor does not guarantee access to it. When I moved to Copdock earlier this year,the nearest surgery was closed to new patients!
Distance to a town is irrelevant unless you are flying. It is the time taken/traffic congestion which really affects access to the town.
Traffic flow/congestion hotspots should used as a criteria to identify areas to grow

More details about Rep ID: 4223

Representation ID: 4183

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Hierarchy - Village status influences development location, Sproughton is classed as CORE and also Hinterland village, IT CANT BE BOTH. DON'T AGREE WITH THE APPROACH TAKEN. Half of Sproughton is outside the A14 and in a SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA. The land around the Village of Sproughton is classified as countryside including Burstall Lane. Scoring is based on distance to services and facilities, should be based on travel time. Sproughton DOES NOT HAVE A POST OFFICE. The information for this section is outdated and Irrelevant.

More details about Rep ID: 4183

Representation ID: 4161

OBJECT Mr Jonathan Gear

Summary:

Copdock and Washbrook are not within the Ipswich Fringe.

More details about Rep ID: 4161

Representation ID: 4131

SUPPORT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

yes

More details about Rep ID: 4131

Representation ID: 4126

SUPPORT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 4126

Representation ID: 3882

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

No, fundamentally flawed, gives no allowance for the capacity of the service, the relative importance of that service to the local community or of the services to cater for any development which would affect it.

Very simplistic approach not worthy of the time and money spent on it.

It matters not what type of settlement it is, but whether that settlement can withstand an increase on its services from any future development. If it cannot, unless provision is made to improve said services then development should not be approved.

More details about Rep ID: 3882

Representation ID: 3818

COMMENT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

I understand and generally support the ranking scheme adopted in this document, however, would suggest that the method of using an absolute points system does not work well ( especially for Beyton ) since not all services and facilities are created equal and should, therefore, have the same points. Example, a convenience store with high prices in a remote village may be of more value to residents than one with similar pricing structure in a village close to a town.
I could not reconcile the 16 point score for Beyton, I calculated 9 and suggest that this is revisited.

More details about Rep ID: 3818

Representation ID: 3673

COMMENT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

The absolute points based ranking scheme seems artificial since the value of each service/function is relative to the settlement in question and it is difficult to establish equivalence between similar services. For example, a convenience store in a settlement that is close to other settlements with such stores is worth less than one in a remote settlement. A large well provisioned community centre is worth more than a village hall with a leaking roof and no heating.
A simpler scheme recognising a combination of facilities and settlement population density would be more credible.

More details about Rep ID: 3673

Representation ID: 3654

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

'Fait accomplis' presents two 'realistic and appropriate' options, denying people democratic means of ranking settlements other than 'where the need to travel can be reduced through good access to facilities and services and where significant adverse impacts can be avoided or mitigated'. Good access to facilities/services doesn't reduce travel, when these are found only in a few settlements. Everyone drives everywhere. 'Services and Facilities Audit' outdated/flawed. Travel is related to a vastly wider range of facilities than Audit covers. Don't rank settlements. All should have parity/strive to become more sustainable. 'Significant adverse impacts' can be avoided anywhere.

More details about Rep ID: 3654

Representation ID: 3574

OBJECT Mr Michael Wright

Summary:

The settlement hierarchy review was undertaken in 2014, therefore the reliance on this for current information is questionable.

Whilst Babergh has sought to establish a broad means by which rural growth can be planned in a sustainable manner, it cannot be applied consistently to all villages, particularly Cockfield; it fails to recognise unique circumstances of specific villages, i.e Cockfield, which comprises eight greens - how was the methodology applied here?

Paragraph 2.3 (Topic Paper) doesn't clarify what is an acceptable walking / cycling distance to use a facility. In relation to Cockfield, the walking/cycling distance differs for each green.

More details about Rep ID: 3574

Representation ID: 3536

COMMENT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Please see previous response

More details about Rep ID: 3536

Representation ID: 3412

OBJECT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

The approach seems appropriate. However, it is unclear if account has been taken of the capacity of each Key and Supporting Service to deliver services in a community, or whether it is simply the presence of such services. E.g. primary schools - the presence of a school does not guarantee availability at that school. A measurement based on time to access neighbouring facilities would be more realistic than distance. Furthermore, accessing neighbouring facilities in Sproughton would nearly always require the use of a car.

More details about Rep ID: 3412

Representation ID: 3385

SUPPORT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

Wyverstone is incorrectly categorised.
Wyverstone should be classified as "Hamlets & Countryside"

More details about Rep ID: 3385

Representation ID: 3287

COMMENT Braiseworth Hall Farms Limited represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

Scoring system seems sensible. However, it is important to not solely focus on the facilities located within a Settlement Boundary and to also recognise relationships to services and facilities in nearby settlements when deciding on the ranking. If a
settlement has limited services and facilities but is well connected to utilise the
services in a nearby settlement, this needs to be recognised. This is the case with
Wilby given the proximity to Stradbroke.

Recent planning decisions and appeals have supported this. Reference 3161759, 3144431, 3152003 and 3164676. On this basis, provided proximity to nearby settlements is
reflected when assessing where settlements sit within the hierarchy, the Council's preferred option SET2 is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 3287

Representation ID: 3056

COMMENT Mrs Ann Reeve

Summary:

I agree if account is taken of availability of places at schools and health centres. The increase load on roads, railways and parking facilities also needs to be considered and if these are already overly busy, full and/ or unsafe then the facility should not be considered to be available and future development limited until such time as there is an adequate infrastructure or definite plans and finance for it

More details about Rep ID: 3056

Representation ID: 3014

OBJECT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

Including Copdock & Washbrook as Ipswich Fringe is fine so long as you are airborne, on a bicycle or walking. . However, as you need to travel over 5 kms by road to reach Ipswich (because of the need to go on a circuitous route) Copdock & Washbrook should not be included in the Ipswich Fringe area.

Your assessment method has obviously been by looking at maps and not measuring the distance along roads.

More details about Rep ID: 3014

Representation ID: 2898

OBJECT Combs Parish Council (Mr Tony Bamber)

Summary:

The title 'Core Village' is inconsistent with the reality of the village of Combs. The village has no services at all and it is not practical to consider access to services via a 10 km walk as reasonable grounds for such a title.

If this categorisation is to be maintained there is real concern that such villages would foster urban sprawl, which does not appear to be an objective.

We consider better approaches have been made in Babergh's Core Strategy 2014 (Section 2, Settlement Pattern - §2.1.3.2 is particularly convincing) or in MSDC's Core Strategy 2008 (§2.30-2.36).

More details about Rep ID: 2898

Representation ID: 2851

COMMENT Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson)

Summary:

In principle but the measures do not take account of the sustainability of a given facility, e.g. where a primary school is 25% over-subscribed.

Employment may be out of LPA area and so no control can be exercised over it.

Proximity to large scale employment should not be arbitrary 5km but related to travel to work area, see Functional Clusters Study A3.4.

More details about Rep ID: 2851

Representation ID: 2834

COMMENT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

I agree with the approach, but the accuracy of the assessment is poor; my village Wyverstone odes not have a convenience store; the public transport is not frequent enough to justify it as an asset; the broadband speed is still below standard

More details about Rep ID: 2834

Representation ID: 2778

COMMENT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 2778

Representation ID: 2732

OBJECT Wetherden Parish COuncil (Mrs Sonia Jewers)

Summary:

The criteria should be overlaid with population data to ensure that small villages with amenities are not over categorized and that large villages with few amenities are not under categorized. Bus Service should be given 2 points for regular and frequent and 1 point for regular. Also points are scored for having a railway station, however not providing a car park or bike shed or regular bus service or indeed pavements for pedestrians to access the railway station, surely must score the village less. See Elmswell for a perfect example of bad scoring under this hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 2732

Representation ID: 2584

OBJECT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council believes the criteria are too wide and do not reflect actuality. Scoring applied to Cockfield is flawed:
convenience store, post office and newsagent are a single facility only: 2.
bakers, butchers, hairdressers, bank, ATM, fuel station - Cockfield has none: 0.
allotments - none available: 0.
broadband 76mbps - very limited availability: 0.
broadband 17mbps - not available everywhere. 3mbps typically achieved: 0.
proximity to a core village within 1.3 miles - the village is a dispersed settlement which places these settlements outside this criterion: 0.

A total score of 14 confirms Cockfield as a Hinterland Village.

More details about Rep ID: 2584

Representation ID: 2496

SUPPORT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2496

Representation ID: 2457

SUPPORT Monks Eleigh Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 2457

Representation ID: 2417

SUPPORT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Yes, agree.

More details about Rep ID: 2417

Representation ID: 2375

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

In principle the methodology to arrive at the settlement hierarchy seems sensible. Dividing the categories into 5 distinct and separate groups allows for the housing expectations to be spread fairly and proportionately within the various categories. The mechanism of allocating points for various facilities within each community would seem a well considered approach...however. The referencing documents scoring the facilities within each community are so old and incorrect, they are flawed. Further work must be done to ensure each community is in the correct category. This is essential for this element of the document to be viewed with confidence.

More details about Rep ID: 2375

Representation ID: 2371

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

We agree with the principle, however, villages may move in and out of a category depending on the availability of local services.

More details about Rep ID: 2371

Representation ID: 2284

SUPPORT Mr Barry Dixon

Summary:

I have no objection to the proposed approach, provided the criteria for each settlement has been updated to reflect their current situation, and not as in 2007 when first calculated.

More details about Rep ID: 2284

Representation ID: 2211

SUPPORT Mrs Fiona Loader

Summary:

A manageable approach

More details about Rep ID: 2211

Representation ID: 2162

OBJECT K&P Coghlin

Summary:

Does your scoring system take into account the number of residents in a village? There should be some correlation between the infrastructure/services available and the size of the population/intended population for this exercise to be useful. The services available in our village for example, are appropriate for the current number of residents, but I would suggest they would not be adequate if the population were to grow much more.

More details about Rep ID: 2162

Representation ID: 2132

COMMENT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

We broadly support the introduction of weighted criteria providing attention is given to the ability of services to meet need.

More details about Rep ID: 2132

Representation ID: 2104

SUPPORT Mr A Herbert represented by Brooks Leney (Mrs Natalie Winspear)

Summary:

I agree with the proposed criteria approach to rank settlements in the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 2104

Representation ID: 1979

SUPPORT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Yes- this is a transparent, clear system of classification

More details about Rep ID: 1979

Representation ID: 1907

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 1907

Representation ID: 1804

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Agree to support this approach

More details about Rep ID: 1804

Representation ID: 1739

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 1739

Representation ID: 1696

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

More details about Rep ID: 1696

Representation ID: 1650

SUPPORT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council agrees with the SET2 preference.

More details about Rep ID: 1650

Representation ID: 1542

SUPPORT Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt

Summary:

I support the criteria approach but the scoring must be accurate. Infrastructure, bus services, broadband etc should be in place before this approach can even start. I believe that the score allocated to Drinkstone is too high as it assumes a good level of broadband coverage which is not the case. The public transport service to the core village and the nearest town is insufficient to merit a score.

More details about Rep ID: 1542

Representation ID: 1531

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

The hierarchy should consider density of population closeness to urban centres and market towns and maintaining a social balance within each community.

More details about Rep ID: 1531

Representation ID: 1491

OBJECT Tostock Parish Council (Ron Perks)

Summary:

The criteria should take account of the current size of the settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 1491

Representation ID: 1486

OBJECT Mr Ron Raisey

Summary:

All well and good allocating a points system to schools, doctors etc but if there are no places available then they shouldn't score at all. Onehouse is a prime example of where development is allowed within Onehouse Parish and then that development/land is immediately reallocated to Stowmarket via a boundary change thus giving no benefit at all to Onehouse and everything to Stowmarket

More details about Rep ID: 1486

Representation ID: 1459

SUPPORT Barton Willmore Planning P'ship (Mr. Paul Foster)

Summary:

The village of Bramford is considered within the "Ipswich Fringe Area", which highlights its location adjacent to Ipswich, and highlights the good connections between the two. Site SS0478 is just over 3 miles from the Ipswich City Centre, with safe access under the A14.

More details about Rep ID: 1459

Representation ID: 1390

SUPPORT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 1390

Representation ID: 1361

COMMENT Haughley Parish Council (Alf Hannan)

Summary:

Yes and No. Yes for Haughley but No for Haughley Green and Haughley New Street. These are within Haughley Parish, yet have been allocated proposed new draft settlement boundaries. Haughley Green and Haughley New Street must therefore be considered under Hamlets and Countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 1361

Representation ID: 1228

SUPPORT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

The criteria approach is relevant and acceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 1228

Representation ID: 1216

SUPPORT mr chris g

Summary:

This points system is a reasonable way to divide settlements into groups.
My proviso is that when allocating points e.g. primary school 2 points, an allowance should be made as to wether the school has any places for new pupils. If school is full then it is worth no points in the system. Same with doctors, work places etc.

More details about Rep ID: 1216

Representation ID: 1211

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I agree with the principle of a criteria approach to settlement ranking in option SET2 however, the methodology should be more transparent in the Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 1211

Representation ID: 1037

OBJECT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

SET2 is fine if adequate transport links exist to and from the higher order settlement.
Some infrastructure, bus services, broadband etc may have to be in place before this approach can even start. Suggest you reassess villages based on the criteria in the report (stores, primary schools etc), then draw in transport and only then propose joint settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 1037

Representation ID: 938

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 938

Representation ID: 793

OBJECT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)

Summary:

Agree that the criteria are fair and sensible approach, but a link to existing populations and local need could have resulted in a more balanced approach.

More details about Rep ID: 793

Representation ID: 617

SUPPORT Groton Manor (Carey Fraulo)

Summary:

Fully support Groton being described as a Hamlet and Countryside, each settlement within Groton which by their very existence already have access to infrastructure services (electricity, water, telephone, access to the highway) can be considered for proportionate housing development. An existing housing settlement cluster of 8-10 houses may accommodate an expansion of 1-2 or 2-3 houses, providing a more even expansion of housing development, and some economies of scale to the existing infrastructure services. Additionally the local Parish council will benefit from a larger precept.

More details about Rep ID: 617

Representation ID: 570

SUPPORT Mr Michael Morley

Summary:

A workable balance

More details about Rep ID: 570

Representation ID: 387

COMMENT John Brownfield

Summary:

The proposed criteria seem as good as any BUT the information used is inaccurate, certainly in terms of Mendham and Withersdale Street. This is worrying as it is supposedly taken from the Services and Facilities Audit undertaken in 2017. A further issue is that it links Mendham and Withersdale together for assessment purposes. Whilst one Parish they are two distinct villages, some miles apart. They do not have the same facilities. To tell anyone in Withersdale Street that they have access to superfast broadband is a joke. 1.2Mbs is typical in Withersdale Street.

More details about Rep ID: 387

Representation ID: 171

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

It should ensure development is not allowed in rural areas which have little or no infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 171

Representation ID: 41

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

This seems reasonable.

More details about Rep ID: 41

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

Powered by OpusConsult