Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

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) - Q12

Representation ID: 16183

OBJECT Westhorpe Parish Council (Ms Camilla Kennedy)

Summary:

Westhorpe is in the countryside (we're not a hamlet).

More details about Rep ID: 16183

Representation ID: 16162

COMMENT Paul Reeley

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16162

Representation ID: 16140

COMMENT Ms. Perpetua Ratcliffe

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16140

Representation ID: 16118

COMMENT Mr P. Pollard

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16118

Representation ID: 16096

COMMENT Mrs Natalie Brook

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16096

Representation ID: 16074

COMMENT Mrs J. Pollard

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16074

Representation ID: 16052

COMMENT Mr Gavin Brook

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16052

Representation ID: 16030

COMMENT Mr Michael Hills

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16030

Representation ID: 16008

COMMENT Mrs Helena Knight

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 16008

Representation ID: 15986

COMMENT Mr Roger Knight

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15986

Representation ID: 15964

COMMENT Mrs J. A. Moore

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15964

Representation ID: 15942

COMMENT Miss Jane Anne Moore

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15942

Representation ID: 15920

COMMENT Mr John Moore

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15920

Representation ID: 15898

COMMENT Mr Dennis John Griggs

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15898

Representation ID: 15876

COMMENT Miss Hockley

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15876

Representation ID: 15854

COMMENT Mr Castle

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15854

Representation ID: 15832

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rowntree

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15832

Representation ID: 15810

COMMENT Mr Carl Rowntree

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15810

Representation ID: 15788

COMMENT Miss Patricia Copeman

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15788

Representation ID: 15766

COMMENT Mr Barry Pearce

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15766

Representation ID: 15744

COMMENT Mrs Faith Marsden

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15744

Representation ID: 15722

COMMENT Mrs Clare Kiely

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15722

Representation ID: 15700

COMMENT Mr Michael Kiely

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15700

Representation ID: 15678

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Maisey

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15678

Representation ID: 15656

COMMENT Mr John Maisey

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15656

Representation ID: 15634

COMMENT Mrs Dorothy Scrivener

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15634

Representation ID: 15612

COMMENT Mr George Scrivener

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15612

Representation ID: 15590

COMMENT Mrs Linda Dennison

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15590

Representation ID: 15568

COMMENT Mr Ralph W. Godbold

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15568

Representation ID: 15546

COMMENT Mrs Blythe Smith

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15546

Representation ID: 15524

COMMENT Mr Richard Smith

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15524

Representation ID: 15502

COMMENT Mrs G. P. Godbold

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15502

Representation ID: 15480

COMMENT Mr. Giles Godbold

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15480

Representation ID: 15458

COMMENT Mrs Sally Hoskyns

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15458

Representation ID: 15436

COMMENT Mr George Major

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15436

Representation ID: 15414

COMMENT Mrs Audrey Cremer

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15414

Representation ID: 15392

COMMENT Ms. Cindy Hughes

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15392

Representation ID: 15370

COMMENT Mr. Anthony Wickenden

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15370

Representation ID: 15348

COMMENT Mrs Irene Wickenden

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15348

Representation ID: 15326

COMMENT Mrs Jacqueline Cordwell

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15326

Representation ID: 15304

COMMENT Mr Leslie Graham Walter Cremer

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15304

Representation ID: 15282

COMMENT Mr. D.I.O. Johnson

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15282

Representation ID: 15260

COMMENT Mrs D. Johnson

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15260

Representation ID: 15238

COMMENT Anthony & Tracy Keeble

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15238

Representation ID: 15216

COMMENT Mr. John Fensom

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15216

Representation ID: 15194

COMMENT Mr. Alan Cordwell

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15194

Representation ID: 15172

COMMENT Mrs Annette Dovell

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15172

Representation ID: 15150

COMMENT Mr. Martin Hewett

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15150

Representation ID: 15128

COMMENT Ms. Shirley Hewett

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15128

Representation ID: 15106

COMMENT Mrs. Carol Forward

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15106

Representation ID: 15084

COMMENT Mr. Grant Lloyd

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15084

Representation ID: 15062

COMMENT Mrts. Natasha Lloyd

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15062

Representation ID: 15040

COMMENT Mr. John Forward

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15040

Representation ID: 15018

COMMENT Mr. Hoskyns

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 15018

Representation ID: 14996

COMMENT Miss Isabel De Minvielle Devaux

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14996

Representation ID: 14974

COMMENT Mr. Ian East

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14974

Representation ID: 14952

COMMENT Ms. Tracy East

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14952

Representation ID: 14930

COMMENT Ms. Ilona Northall

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14930

Representation ID: 14908

COMMENT Mr. Alex James Richard May

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14908

Representation ID: 14886

COMMENT Mr. Richard John May

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14886

Representation ID: 14864

COMMENT Ms. Kathryn Anne May

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14864

Representation ID: 14842

COMMENT Ms. Olivia Frances Chloe May

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14842

Representation ID: 14820

COMMENT Mr. Charles Hogger

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14820

Representation ID: 14798

COMMENT Ms. Jo-Ann Hogger

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14798

Representation ID: 14776

COMMENT Mr P. L. Ratcliffe

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14776

Representation ID: 14754

COMMENT Miss Tracey Durling

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14754

Representation ID: 14732

COMMENT Mrs Carol Griggs

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 14732

Representation ID: 13235

COMMENT Mr. Artist

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 13235

Representation ID: 13220

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

Summary:

The inclusion of Sproughton and Copdock and Washbrook within the Ipswich fringe provides a strong rationale for allocating a higher level of growth to these locations than would otherwise be appropriate for core and/or hinterland villages, and is also supported. The status of these settlements should be clarified by omitting all Ipswich Fringe villages from other tiers in the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 13220

Representation ID: 13158

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

Summary:

We also agree with the joint settlement hierarchy proposed within the Emerging Local Plan. We consider that adopting a joint approach is suitable and allows consistency across settlements within the Districts, especially given that this is a Joint Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 13158

Representation ID: 13114

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Query why the village of Henley has been categorised as a Core Village and is not identified as part of the Ipswich fringe area.

More details about Rep ID: 13114

Representation ID: 12855

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

Summary:

Wherstead's treatment is confusing - land to the north of A14 is within Ipswich fringe, land to the south is open countryside, despite it forming part of the same village and containing an employment site of strategic importance. Wherstead should have points attributed for public house/restaurant (1-2 points). No points attributed despite it being close to small scale employment sites at Marina hotel, Suffolk Leisure Centre, Peninsula Business Park (1 point). Additional 2 - 3 points would life the score to 9 a Hinterland Village. Considering Wherstead as a whole unconstrained by built-up boundary it would score points for pre-school, village hall and place of worship. Points for food/drink, retail and children's play area at Suffolk Food Hall, and recreational grounds at Wherstead Park.

More details about Rep ID: 12855

Representation ID: 12747

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

Summary:

The inclusion of Sproughton and Copdock and Washbrook within the Ipswich fringe provides a strong rationale for allocating a higher level of growth to these locations than would otherwise be appropriate for core and/or hinterland villages, and is also supported. The status of these settlements should be clarified by omitting all Ipswich Fringe villages from other tiers in the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 12747

Representation ID: 12740

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

o Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.
(Sproughton identified as having a P.O.!)

More details about Rep ID: 12740

Representation ID: 12651

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

Sproughton is classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, it can't be both?

More details about Rep ID: 12651

Representation ID: 12584

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.
(Sproughton identified as having a P.O.!)

More details about Rep ID: 12584

Representation ID: 12466

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

Summary:

We agree that with the services and facilities available in Debenham, the settlement has been appropriately identified as a 'Core Village', the highest ranking for settlements outside of the Ipswich Fringe Area, urban areas and market towns. Through this ranking, the hierarchy correctly identifies that Debenham is capable of supporting growth. In line with the enclosed 'Vision Document' we would encourage Debenham, as a Core Village, to be capable of taking a fair and proportionate level of growth for BMSDC.

Adopting a joint approach is suitable and allows consistency across settlements within the Districts, especially given that this is a Joint Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 12466

Representation ID: 12452

SUPPORT Ms C Ciechomski represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr. James Firth)

Summary:

The Issues & Options document identifies Needham Market as an Urban Area and Market Town. This identification is supported. Needham Market boasts a number of services including a primary school, healthcare facilities, a range of public houses and restaurants, local retail, a railway station providing mainline services and recreational facilities. Needham Market also provides a number of employment opportunities. Needham Market's position within the settlement hierarchy has been informed by a quantitative assessment of its characteristics by the Council, and is considered justified.
Given the settlement's position within the hierarchy, Needham Market is considered an appropriate location for residential growth.

More details about Rep ID: 12452

Representation ID: 12311

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

Summary:

Noted that Stowupland scores 29, significantly higher than the minimum required to be categorised as a Core Village. Stowupland is therefore a highly sustainable location for development. Benefits from good access to local facilities and services.

We agree with the joint settlement hierarchy proposed within the Emerging Local Plan. We consider that adopting a joint approach is suitable and allows consistency across settlements within the Districts, especially given that this is a Joint Local Plan. However, this should not restrict development coming forward in sustainable locations, such as Stowupland.

More details about Rep ID: 12311

Representation ID: 12289

OBJECT Anthony Villar represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr William Nichols)

Summary:

The proposed criteria approach to ranking settlements in the hierarchy is generally support, however is considered that the settlement hierarchy itself should be amended, with a specific regard to the Ipswich Fringe Area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Joint Local Plan document states 'there is no proposal to amend the designations/status of the Ipswich Fringe Area, existing urban areas and market towns in the new joint settlement hierarchy', amendments should be made in order to be compliant with current national policy.
Paragraph 52 of the NPPF states 'the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning
for larger scale development, such as... extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities.' 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: 12289

Representation ID: 12256

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

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 12256

Representation ID: 12226

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

Summary:

We support the proposed ranking of Lavenham as a Core Village within the Joint Settlement Hierarchy. This correctly recognises the level of key services and facilities that the village provides for the existing community. Lavenham is an important asset for the local community and also plays a key role in supporting the wider rural community in this part of the District. It is considered that this ranking reflects the village's function and role in the local area and its capability to support development that would contribute to district level and local housing needs.

More details about Rep ID: 12226

Representation ID: 12192

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

Summary:

We would suggest that Option SET2, Key & Supporting Services, is the most appropriate method for drafting a revised settlement hierarchy. Such an approach enables settlements to be evaluated in a wider context, therefore providing a more accurate indication of their sustainability. Consequently, in its proposed form, the Joint Settlement Hierarchy is supported. From this hierarchy, it is noted that Holbrook continues to be classified as a 'Core Village'.

More details about Rep ID: 12192

Representation ID: 12137

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

Summary:

Holton St Mary's classification as a Hamlet is supported. It achieves a score of 8 in the settlement hierarchy, which is the upper limit of Hamlets. In establishing a policy for new development within a settlement hierarchy it is important for the council to recognise the differences between settlements within a category and not to simply distribute development evenly across the range of settlements within a category. Plan should not be overly prescriptive in the allocation of development where sites may be sustainable and assist in meeting objectives of the Plan and national policy.

More details about Rep ID: 12137

Representation ID: 12090

SUPPORT Great Blakenham Parish Council (Ms Janet Gobey) represented by Great Blakenham Parish Council (Ms Janet Gobey)

Summary:

The Consultation Document proposes that Great Blakenham is regarded as part of the Ipswich Fringe. Given the above, the Parish Council agrees that this is a sensible approach and that the infrastructure delivery for the communities around Ipswich should be planned on that basis. However, Great Blakenham Parish Council expect due regard to be given to the individual needs of each community within the grouping.

More details about Rep ID: 12090

Representation ID: 12075

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

Summary:

It is noted that Redgrave is to be classified as a 'Hinterland Village', although a review of the critiera, as explained in representation for Q11, may justify its inclusion as a 'Core Village', given it has a Public House, Village Hall and local shop.

More details about Rep ID: 12075

Representation ID: 12052

OBJECT Montague Asset Management represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr William Nichols)

Summary:

Generally supported, but should be amended, specifically the Ipswich Fringe Area. The Joint Local Plan document states 'there is no proposal to amend the designations/status of the Ipswich Fringe Area, existing urban areas and market towns in the new joint settlement hierarchy', it is considered that amendments should be made in order to be compliant with current national policy. Paragraph 52 of the NPPF
'the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as... extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities.' 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: 12052

Representation ID: 11961

COMMENT The Trustees of the Tollemache 1965 Settlement represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

The Issues & Options document identifies Framsden as within the Hamlets and Countryside tier of the settlement hierarchy.

The village benefits from a public house, village hall and church; and the existing community is served by Helmingham Primary School and Old Schoolhouse Nursery located just outside of the village to the south-west.

Whilst it is acknowledged that this may not qualify the village for designation as a hinterland village or higher in the settlement hierarchy, it is nevertheless important that the Local Plan recognises that Framsden is an existing rural community, with services and facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 11961

Representation ID: 11938

COMMENT The Trustees of the Tollemache 1965 Settlement represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

Framsden benefits from a public house, village hall and church; and the existing community is served by Helmingham Primary School and Old Schoolhouse Nursery located just outside of the village to the south-west.

Whilst it is acknowledged that this may not qualify the village for designation as a hinterland village or higher in the settlement hierarchy, it is nevertheless important that the Local Plan recognises that Framsden is an existing rural community, with services and facilities. As such, in terms of how the settlement hierarchy is utilised for the purposes of plan-making, the JLP must - as per the requirements of the NPPF - seek to support the vitality of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 11938

Representation ID: 11900

COMMENT Turley (Mr Gareth Barton)

Summary:

We agree with the continued identification of the Ipswich fringe as a growth area. We therefore agree with the identification of the Ipswich fringe area, including Whitton, in the settlement hierarchy.
The level of required growth will necessitate development beyond the Ipswich administrative boundary. There should be a particular focus on providing this growth in those settlements located around the Ipswich fringe. This is considered logical given the direct relationship between such areas and the Ipswich urban area.

More details about Rep ID: 11900

Representation ID: 11825

OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

o Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.
Sproughton identified as having a P.O.!

More details about Rep ID: 11825

Representation ID: 11752

OBJECT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

There are inaccuracies for Great Waldingfield and Acton.

Great Waldingfield... (Current Score 21)

* It doesn't have: Baker, Butcher, Hairdresser, Newsagent, Bank, ATM or Fuel Station (-2 Points)
* It is more than 3.1 miles from Sudbury (-2 points)
* It is more than 1.2 miles from a core village (-1 point)
* This makes the score 16 not 21 and is therefore 2 points below the threshold of 18 for core village.

Acton:

* It has a pre-school (+1 point)
* It has an ATM (+1 point)

* This makes the score 19 and is therefore a core village.

More details about Rep ID: 11752

Representation ID: 11674

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: 11674

Representation ID: 11661

SUPPORT Haughley Park Consortium represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Woolpit is identified as a "Core Village" within the proposed settlement hierarchy. Woolpit is a large village which benefits from a number of employment sites and facilities, and therefore should not be constrained from accommodating development.

More details about Rep ID: 11661

Representation ID: 11650

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

Summary:

Whilst the Council's Settlement Hierarchy Review concluded that Acton merits remaining a 'Hinterland Village', we consider that the evidence points to it warranting re-designation to 'Core Village' status.

More details about Rep ID: 11650

Representation ID: 11632

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

Summary:

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.

Regarding population figures it is quite apparent that Stowmarket and Sudbury are both substantially larger than the other urban areas/market towns. Consequently, from a sustainability point of view we consider that Stowmarket and Sudbury should be elevated to a new category 'Major Market Towns'.

More details about Rep ID: 11632

Representation ID: 11591

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

Summary:

At present Shotley is defined as a Hinterland Village, and whilst our clients support its
potential designation as a Core Village, they have reservations over the potential
scale of development that could be accommodated on the land to the south The
Street, Shotley. The Babergh and Mid Suffolk Housing and Economic Land
Availability Assessment (SHELAA), August 2017 identifies a potential capacity of 50
- 75 dwellings which is significant in view of pre-existing commitments that exist in
the locality, such as HMS Ganges, and the limitations of the B1456 road which is the
only vehicular access to the village.

More details about Rep ID: 11591

Representation ID: 11541

OBJECT Annette Powell

Summary:

* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.

More details about Rep ID: 11541

Representation ID: 11531

SUPPORT Thorndon Parish Council (Amanda Thompson)

Summary:

Thorndon is very satisfied with the designation of Hinterland village.

More details about Rep ID: 11531

Representation ID: 11496

OBJECT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )

Summary:

Great Cornard Parish Council objects to its inclusion as part of Sudbury. Great Cornard is the second largest population centre in the Babergh District, marginally larger than Hadleigh, and should be recognised as a settlement in its own right with its own settlement plan. Many much smaller villages than Great Cornard are accorded their own plan, while Great Cornard is chopped into pieces.

More details about Rep ID: 11496

Representation ID: 11408

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

We dispute that Wherstead (south of the A14) can really be regarded as Ipswich Fringe. It is firmly severed from Ipswich by the A14 and swathes of farmland and woodland and has a small village character largely uninfluenced by Ipswich.

We dispute that Chelmondiston can properly be regarded as a Core Village alongside Capel St Mary and Holbrook. It is of a completely different scale and character.

More details about Rep ID: 11408

Representation ID: 11324

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, it can't be both.
(Sproughton identified as having a Post Office!)

More details about Rep ID: 11324

Representation ID: 11306

OBJECT Mrs Diana Langford

Summary:

Little Waldingfield should be designated a "Hamlet" according to your criteria in the "Topic Paper".

More details about Rep ID: 11306

Representation ID: 11302

OBJECT La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs N Wright)

Summary:

More details about Rep ID: 11302

Representation ID: 11294

OBJECT Mrs Julie Claire Bell

Summary:

Gislingham:
Should not be awarded zero points for:
Post Office (only have a mobile Post Office 6 hours/week)
Baker/Butcher/Hairdresser/Newsagent/Bank
Allotments (nearest allotment is outside the Parish)
Bus Stop - peak time


Should be awarded 1 point for Superfast Broadband as only a small percentage of the community have it.

I make this 10 points to your 20.

More details about Rep ID: 11294

Representation ID: 11184

SUPPORT Mr S Ruffell represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr Michael Ward)

Summary:

The Issues & Options Document identifies Cockfield as a Core Village. This classification is supported and is justified. Indeed, an objective assessment has been undertaken of Cockfield and the level of facilities it provides. Within the Council's Settlement Hierarchy Review 2017, it is recognised that Cockfield provides facilities such as a primary school, a post office, a convenience store, a church, a food/drink outlet and a local bus service.

More details about Rep ID: 11184

Representation ID: 11170

SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

Broadly agree. We would question the source of the data to substantiate this as it appears out of date.

More details about Rep ID: 11170

Representation ID: 11111

SUPPORT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Rattlesden Parish Council broadly agrees with the principle of ranking settlements and would accept being designated a hinterland village. It has only limited key services - one convenience store/post office, primary school and a bus stop. Of the other services referred to in the consultation document, Rattlesden has a village hall, two public houses and a recreation ground. Broadband speeds are very variable.

More details about Rep ID: 11111

Representation ID: 11092

SUPPORT Catesby Estates Limited represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Jen Carroll)

Summary:

The identification of Sudbury (including part of Chilton and part of Great Cornard) as an 'Urban areas and Market Towns' is supported. Sudbury has a number of everyday facilities and services including several supermarkets, primary schools, secondary schools, convenience stores, library community health centre and playing fields.

It is considered this reflects the settlement's function and role in the local area, its capability to contribute to the Council's housing needs as a focus for growth, and it reflects the settlements character as a large urban area.

More details about Rep ID: 11092

Representation ID: 11065

COMMENT John Miles & Sons represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

Norton is identified as a Core Village. Norton is an established rural community with a population of 1,003 (Census 2011). Services and facilities include a convenience store (located within a service station); village hall; primary school; pre-school; churches; and public houses. A mobile post office also serves the village. As such, the village is considered to merit recognition as a Core Village in the settlement hierarchy. It is important that a proportionate level of growth is directed to Norton through the Local Plan, to ensure it remains a viable community and that existing services and facilities are supported over the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 11065

Representation ID: 10986

SUPPORT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that there is a necessity for the proposed joint settlement hierarchy categories to be reviewed and amended, as appropriate. In respect of Stowmarket, the designation of 'Urban Area and Market Town' is correct.

More details about Rep ID: 10986

Representation ID: 10906

SUPPORT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

Yes, the hierarchy seems to reflect key services and facilities

More details about Rep ID: 10906

Representation ID: 10893

OBJECT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

it is important that the application of the settlement hierarchy to the distribution of housing recognises the functionally relationships between settlements, and how this may impact on their appropriateness to accommodate growth. In this respect, we welcome the identification of Thurston as being within the Ipswich fringe area. As the JLP notes, Ipswich is the county town and a regional service centre, which clearly has a cross-boundary sphere of influence which extends into parts of Mid-Suffolk. Including Thurston.

It is appropriate that the JLP explore opportunities for settlements which have functional relationships with Ipswich, such as Thurston, to accommodate a proportion of this need.

More details about Rep ID: 10893

Representation ID: 10892

SUPPORT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

Thurston as a Core Village is supported, as it has a range of services and facilities which makes it a sustainable location for development.

Important that the JLP does not adopt an overly prescriptive approach to the distribution of housing based on the proposed settlement hierarchy. Overly simplistic approach, which would fail to direct development to the most sustainable locations, potentially overlooking sustainable opportunities.

More details about Rep ID: 10892

Representation ID: 10768

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Yes.
Seems odd that Mendlesham Green is omitted from all lists.
It sits some 1.6 kms from Mendlesham Village and is not seen as a direct part of Mendlesham village?

More details about Rep ID: 10768

Representation ID: 10729

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: 10729

Representation ID: 10681

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

Summary:

The proposed joint settlement hierarchy appears acceptable as it sensibly categorises settlements based on the criteria set out.
In particular, it is agreed that Holbrook is correctly identified as a Core Village based on facilities and services available.

More details about Rep ID: 10681

Representation ID: 10662

OBJECT Aldham Parish Council (Mr Jonathan Ralph)

Summary:

The current scoring for Aldham (9) is not correct. The correct score for Public Transport is "0" and for Internet Connectivity is "1". The correct total score for Aldham is therefore "6" - meaning Aldham should be included in the "Hamlets and Countryside" category rather than "Hinterland Village" as at present.

More details about Rep ID: 10662

Representation ID: 10622

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Do not agree
Sproughton appears to be classified with two identities it should be amended as a village as it properly is.

More details about Rep ID: 10622

Representation ID: 10617

OBJECT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* 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: 10617

Representation ID: 10567

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: 10567

Representation ID: 10554

SUPPORT Countryside Properties (Mrs Emma Woods)

Summary:

East Bergholt's proposed designation as a Core Village within the settlement hierarchy is supported. East Bergholt is considered to be a sustainable location for future growth and is currently identified as a Core Village due to its function in providing services for nearby 'satellite and hinterland' villages as stated in Policy CS11 of the Adopted Core Strategy. East Bergholt features a range of village facilities and services and is a village with a range of daytime bus services which operate Monday to Saturday. Therefore, it can be demonstrated that East Bergholt is a village capable of both supporting and being supported by any future development.

More details about Rep ID: 10554

Representation ID: 10515

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, it can't be both.
Sproughton identified as having a Post Office

More details about Rep ID: 10515

Representation ID: 10413

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, it can't be both.
(Sproughton identified as having a Post Office!).

More details about Rep ID: 10413

Representation ID: 10247

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We also agree with the joint settlement hierarchy proposed within the Emerging Local Plan. We consider that adopting a joint approach is suitable and allows consistency across settlements within the Districts, especially given that this is a Joint Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 10247

Representation ID: 10234

OBJECT Jo Cripps

Summary:

I feel the village has been incorrectly identified as a core village and therefore is not suitable for further larger scale development The village has/is already accommodating lots of development.
We do not have a proper bus service, cash point, butcher, baker, allotment, hairdresser or even a public house which is open each day.

More details about Rep ID: 10234

Representation ID: 10232

OBJECT E. R. Ling & Sons Ltd. (Mr. J Ling) represented by NPS Property Consultants (Mr Richard Smith)

Summary:

Palgrave has been incorrectly categorised as a 'Hinterland Village' in the Councils Settlement Hierarchy. Palgrave has a regular peak time bus service to Diss and Bury St Edmunds (Symonds 304, Galloway 456) which had not been awarded points. Once corrected Palgrave would have 18 points and would fall within the category of 'Core Village'. The reclassification of the village to a 'Core Village' is important as it would recognise Palgrave's sustainable location being in walking distance or services and facilities within Diss. It would also help support a greater level of new housing development in Palgrave which would facilitate the provision of a much needed new school through CIL contributions.

More details about Rep ID: 10232

Representation ID: 9985

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, it can't be both.
(Sproughton identified as having a Post Office!).

More details about Rep ID: 9985

Representation ID: 9962

OBJECT Mr Oliver Richards

Summary:

Objection to settlement reclassification: I wish to support the Parish Council responses to the consultation in relation to reclassifying the village as a 'hamlet' rather than a 'hinterland village'. I understand that more accurate scoring of the infrastructure criteria would give the village 3 points rather than 9 and that this
defines a hamlet with limited ability to accept new developments.

More details about Rep ID: 9962

Representation ID: 9961

OBJECT Julie Brown

Summary:

Sproughton does NOT have a Post Office as stated, just a small community shop. There is no doctors or dentist either.

More details about Rep ID: 9961

Representation ID: 9846

OBJECT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

Broad range of size, and range of services available in the settlements listed as Core Villages. For instance Thurston and Lavenham compared with Badwell Ash and Old Newton. Creeting St Mary has no more services than Rattlesden yet both are classed as core villages. Also, eg, why is Harleston a Hamlet and Creeting St Peter a Hinterland Village?

More details about Rep ID: 9846

Representation ID: 9825

OBJECT Earl Stonham Parish Council (Mrs Jennie Blackburn)

Summary:

Pages 23-26 of the Local Plan document state that Earl Stonham is designated as a "Hinterland Village". Looking at the Topic Paper: Settlement Hierarchy Review, it scores 15 points. However, 5 of those are said to be because of the of presence retail facilities in the village. The Parish Council wish to point out that there are no retail facilities within the village.

More details about Rep ID: 9825

Representation ID: 9821

OBJECT Wyverstone Parish Council (Kate Webster)

Summary:

1. Under the points system used in the Settlement Hierarchy Review, Wyverstone has been wrongly awarded points

It does not have a public house/food or drink outlet
It does not have a shop of any kind/hairdresser/fuel station/bank or ATM
It does not have allotments or any sports/leisure facilities

As a result the village scores only 7 points and should therefore fall under the Hamlet/Countryside category.

More details about Rep ID: 9821

Representation ID: 9811

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

Summary:

Our client supports the proposed Joint Settlement Hierarchy Categories for Babergh and Mid Suffolk. We welcome the addition of an Ipswich Fringe Area, including Akenham.

More details about Rep ID: 9811

Representation ID: 9791

SUPPORT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

4. I support the downgrading of Shimpling from hinterland village to hamlets and countryside. This, at least, is a better recognition of the fact that it is, a non-sustainable village. This surely should offer it some protections against the development applications which are currently in danger of swamping us? If we go back to 'sustainability' being the key criterion for all things planning related, then the non sustainable villages should be exempt from development.
Economic need should be the only exceptional criterion on deciding on development in unsustainable settlements like Shimpling. If there is a need for a person to live in the village as part of his/her job, then that should be a consideration in the planning process.

More details about Rep ID: 9791

Representation ID: 9705

OBJECT Mr Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

We do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy in the case of Great Waldingfield. When Chilton Wood is complete Great Waldingfield will be within 1km of the new development. To add further significant development to a village so close to 1100 new homes and associated industrial units must by any measure count as over development. We therefore believe Great Waldingfield should be considered as an exception and be classified as a hinterland village. Any development should be proportionate to the size of the current village as a fixed percentage.

More details about Rep ID: 9705

Representation ID: 9700

SUPPORT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

I agree that Debenham should be classified as a core village. I am not in a position to comment of many of the other designated core villages.

More details about Rep ID: 9700

Representation ID: 9637

OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both. Sproughton identified as having a P.O.

More details about Rep ID: 9637

Representation ID: 9524

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

I do not agree with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy and a fresh review based on the original 2006 methodology should be conducted with full local participation.

As since 2001 (page 30) 60% of Baberghs completed development has been "rural" based, to effectively in all options continue this rural based growth will neutralise any "sustainable" criteria and furthermore directly conflict with the NPPF (work based growth) and its sustainability criteria where Infrastructure is overloaded and at breaking point with no realistic or even optimistic plans for any relief.

More details about Rep ID: 9524

Representation ID: 9521

OBJECT Mr Peter Bellerby

Summary:

Object to Norton being classified as a Core Village.

We have a Petrol Station that sells a few grocery items and some Newspapers. So we do not really have a Convenience Store and I feel that the 2 points for this should be removed.

2 points have been given for Proximity to a Town within 5kms, and 1 point has been given for Proximity to a small scale employment area within 5kms. But from the centre of the Village I am unaware of the location of the places that have been used to award the 3 points and I feel that these should be removed.

It only requires a reduction of 2 points to reclassify the Village as a Hinterland Village.

More details about Rep ID: 9521

Representation ID: 9501

OBJECT Jonathan & Penelope Marland

Summary:

We write a further letter concerning the Local Plan and wish to state that in our opinion Gislingham does not warrant being classified as a 'CORE' Village. In our view the amenities within the Village relate to the classification of 'Hinterland'.

More details about Rep ID: 9501

Representation ID: 9428

SUPPORT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Agree, although some of the data used appears out of date and could change some of the ranking.

More details about Rep ID: 9428

Representation ID: 9378

OBJECT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

Looking at the audit that was done and the ranking scheme we find it hard to see how some villages (Beyton and Hessett for example) are classed as Hinterland villages rather than Hamlets and would ask the council to look at this again. The Parish council has reviewed the ranking and believe Beyton should have scored 9.
Beyton would question the proposed settlement boundary. There are a number of anomalies in the ranking system, rankings may change within 22 years of the plan and more appropriate classification could be adopted.

More details about Rep ID: 9378

Representation ID: 9353

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

See the answer to question 11 for doubts about its validity.

More details about Rep ID: 9353

Representation ID: 9325

SUPPORT J W Baldwin Farms represented by Pegasus Group (Mr Robert Barber)

Summary:

My client supports the proposed settlement hierarchy and Eye should be afforded new residential site allocations by virtue of its service provision, transport links and employment opportunities.

More details about Rep ID: 9325

Representation ID: 9313

OBJECT Wickham Skeith Parish Council (Tara Goodacre)

Summary:

Wickham Skeith is currently being categorised as a "Hinterland Village" which is felt to be incorrect from the scoring shown in the Topic Paper:
3 points have been awared for Banking/Post Office/Retail - Wickham Skeith has non of these facilities.
There are no employment sites (up to 100 jobs)
With the poor bus services, 2 points would seem unreasonable
There is not a Recreational/Children Play Area.
May we request for this to be reviewed, which should allow Wickham Skeith to fall into the category of "Hamlet"?

More details about Rep ID: 9313

Representation ID: 9303

OBJECT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

An equally important issue is the categorisation of Pin Mill within this parish and therefore, as things stand, as a CORE centre. Given its importance as a tourist destination, major Suffolk heritage site, Conservation Area and part of the AONB, we feel that Pin Mill should be categorised separately as a "Hamlet", in the way that Lower Holbrook and East end of East Bergholt are categorised separately from their parish centres.

More details about Rep ID: 9303

Representation ID: 9302

OBJECT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

To our great surprise we have learned that Hollingsworth's store will be shortly reopening under a leased arrangement. This will slightly alter our scoring in the classification of settlements, but we feel that the shop still has a precarious and unpredictable future as the business has been closed for two years and prior to that was not thriving. Its reopening might therefore add a further point to our overall score, but not bring us into "Core Village" category such as Holbrook or Shotley, as we still lack many of the facilities of these larger village centres.
Other views expressed in our letter of 11th September remain the same: in summary that we should be classified as a "Hinterland" Village, and that Pin Mill should be separately categorised as a "Hamlet".

More details about Rep ID: 9302

Representation ID: 9288

OBJECT Mrs Valerie Cousins

Summary:

Cockfield should not be considered as a Core Village as it does not have sufficient services/amenities and needs to be reclassified as a Hamlet/Hinterland/Countryside.
Cross Green is one of eight Greens of Cockfield and as such should be seen as a separate entity. Cross Green has few services/amenities and would only score five points. Cross Green is more than two kilometres from Cockfield's main services/amenities without continuous pavements/ footpaths.

More details about Rep ID: 9288

Representation ID: 9284

OBJECT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The data in the Settlement Hierarchy Review and Services Facilities Audit are either very out of date or inaccurate and there is no consistency across the two documents. They have included facilities and services such as convenience store, post office and regular bus service which are no longer available in Kersey, but have failed to include the playground, hairdressers, café, allotments or proximity to Hadleigh as a larger employment site or as a town settlement with services. However, after recalculating using up to date information Kersey would still fall in the range of being a hinterland village. This inaccuracy does raise concerns about the general accuracy of data across the whole Plan process. I attach a sheet showing the actual facilities identified in Kersey in October 2017.

More details about Rep ID: 9284

Representation ID: 9267

OBJECT Elmsett Parish Council (Andrea Newman)

Summary:

Elmsett is wrongly recorded as a Core Village. Elmsett has been given a total of 18 points. However, under the Recreation category Elmsett does not have Allotments (deduct 1 point) and under the Public Transport Category Elmsett does not have daily peak time services to/from a higher order settlement (deduct 2 points). When these 3 points are taken from the assessment Elmsett totals 15 points and correctly ranks as a Hinterland Village. We will be pleased for you to recognise this fact and inform us that you will correct the classification of Elmsett as a Hinterland Village.

More details about Rep ID: 9267

Representation ID: 9260

OBJECT Colonel Rae Leighton & Mrs Anne Leighton

Summary:

Norton is not a CORE VILLAGE and the assessment is fundamentally flawed: it is a Hinterland Village and as such has a lesser housing requirement than stated in this local plan.

(1) The 'convenience' store is extremely small and cramped. Access is greatly restricted by a garage forecourt. For residents on the extremity of the village, there is a requirement to use a car to get to the store. Parking is non existent at the 'convenience' store. There is no local retail store within the village.
(2) Retail: Only a newsagent, which is incorporated in the 'convenience' store and fuel station exist.
(3) Internet connectivity: Super Fast Broadband exits in less than half of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 9260

Representation ID: 9189

OBJECT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Sproughton is classed as a "Core Village" in Table 2 (p6) of BMSDC Topic Paper: Settlement Hierarchy Review - August 2017, but as a "Hinterland Village" in the Appendix (Services and Facilities Matrix) to the same document.
There is no post office in Sproughton, yet it scores 1 for having a post office! How much care has been taken in the review, and how recent it the data in it?
Overall the status of Sproughton is unclear and the actual facilities located within it and genuinely accessible in neighbouring settlements are overstated, casting doubt on the scoring in the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 9189

Representation ID: 9166

OBJECT J D Pickett

Summary:

Sproughton cannot be designated as both Core and Hinterland, it cannot be both.

Sproughton does not have a P.O. as stated in your documentation.

More details about Rep ID: 9166

Representation ID: 9141

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

Summary:

No - see response to q11

More details about Rep ID: 9141

Representation ID: 8854

OBJECT Mr Simon Pearce

Summary:

Woolverstone should be designated as a Hamlet not a Hinterland village. The current analysis is flawed.

More details about Rep ID: 8854

Representation ID: 8748

SUPPORT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 8748

Representation ID: 8677

OBJECT Stoke Ash and Thwaite Parish Council (Mr Daniel Roth)

Summary:

The point calculation for Thwaite is incorrect the total should be 12 points bringing it into the Hinterland Village section although it is very small village only just getting a boundary marks in this plan, but has a petrol station with small convenience store and an ATM that sometimes has cash in it just within the parish boundary but not in the marked area. Without that it would only have 8 points. Please see the attached pdf for the corrected points.

More details about Rep ID: 8677

Representation ID: 8667

OBJECT Portland Planning (Gillian Davidson)

Summary:

Scoring for Brundish is incorrect. There is no village shop and it is not within 2km of a core village.
There is no planning purpose in attempting to identify settlements smaller than 'hinterland villages'. There is no need to attempt to identify hamlets and countryside settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 8667

Representation ID: 8661

OBJECT Stoke Ash and Thwaite Parish Council (Mr Daniel Roth)

Summary:

The point calculation for Stoke Ash is incorrect the total should be 8 points bringing it into the Hamlets & Countryside section. Please see the attached pdf for the corrected points.

More details about Rep ID: 8661

Representation ID: 8615

SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

Parish Council agreed with the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 8615

Representation ID: 8611

SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

Parish council considers this the best option

More details about Rep ID: 8611

Representation ID: 8589

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

Summary:

No - need for new classification 'Intermediate Villages'.

More details about Rep ID: 8589

Representation ID: 8312

OBJECT Ms Lesley Paris

Summary:

Norton should not be a core village. How can Norton be is the same category as Stowupland that is earmarked for significant housing growth? This does not make sense
Convenience store is where people do their regular shopping without having to travel, like the Co-op in Woolpit. The store in Norton is a small shop as part of the fuel station as a standby shop - It is not a key service.
There are no townswithin 5Km of Norton nor a key service centre within 2Km so this should have zero points.
Norton should be well below the 18 point threshold.

More details about Rep ID: 8312

Representation ID: 8263

SUPPORT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council agrees with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 8263

Representation ID: 8178

SUPPORT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

Yes, it seems sensible

More details about Rep ID: 8178

Representation ID: 8021

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

Summary:

The settlement hierarchy appears reasonable and it is up to individual parishes to challenge discrepancies. Therefore, I will raise the issue of separating Rickinghall Inferior and Superior, which are so intertwined along The Street that residents often don't know where the border wanders. Now that there is a combined Parish Council for the two parishes of Rickinghall, the significance of treating them separately for planning purposes is lost. The Neighbourhood Plan area agreed is for the full parishes of Botesdale, Rickinghall Inferior and Rickinghall Superior.

More details about Rep ID: 8021

Representation ID: 8005

SUPPORT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 8005

Representation ID: 7764

SUPPORT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 7764

Representation ID: 7663

OBJECT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

We refer to our letter dated 10 November whereby part of the Parish of Chilton is included within Sudbury. We disagree. Chilton needs to have separate recognition as a parish and we 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: 7663

Representation ID: 7640

COMMENT Mrs Gillian West

Summary:

I am confused by the simultaneous ranking Wherstead as 'Ipswich Fringe' and 'Hamlets & Countryside'. On the basis of ranking criteria listed and given the village is split in two by the A14, that it lies outwith the Ipswich City boundary, has no schools, doctor's office, shops etc within walking distance, it is difficult to justify the Ipswich Fringe designation. It is feared the proximity to Ipswich, despite being on the Orwell Estuary AONB, outside the BUAB thus countryside, could see it used as a dumping ground for residential development that would otherwise not be permitted.

More details about Rep ID: 7640

Representation ID: 7597

OBJECT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

See per Q11.

More details about Rep ID: 7597

Representation ID: 7356

OBJECT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

See response to Q11.

More details about Rep ID: 7356

Representation ID: 7332

OBJECT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

The Ipswich fringe needs to be better explained and justified. What does it mean and why are those villages included? Areas for development should be identified because they are good places for houses, not because they sit within a certain radius of an existing settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 7332

Representation ID: 7297

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

The arbitrary scoring system adopted to score/classify communities actually turns the concept of Creeping Coalescence and its avoidance under the NPPF on its head as it scores the very factors that identify the risk of erosion of a communities identity as positive factors rather than negative factors. This in effect creates an excuse to circumvent NPPF policies to protect community identities to allow development. Creeping Coalescence is to be avoided - any settlement hierarchy should factor this in.

More details about Rep ID: 7297

Representation ID: 7185

OBJECT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

Sproughton is classed as a core village and also a hinterland in the same document table 2 BMSDC. It classes it as having a post office when in fact it does not. I do not agree with the hierarchy proposed as it does not seem to be updated. A measurement based on "time to access" neighbouring facilities would be a more realistic measurement.

More details about Rep ID: 7185

Representation ID: 7061

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Relationship, Village identity, Service Capacity, Longevity, Time not Distance, Proximity to village, Voluntary services.

More details about Rep ID: 7061

Representation ID: 7051

OBJECT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

It is unreasonable to classify Great Waldingfield as a Core village. It seems little/no different from Acton which is classified as Hinterland. There are very few facilities and it is over 3miles from Sudbury. (Why is a metric measurement applied when this country retains imperial measurements for distance?). Furthermore, Great Waldingfield will be within 1 mile of the recently-approved Chilton Woods development of over 1,000 houses and so any further large-scale development in the area (especially such as that foisted on a Core Village) would be inappropriate

More details about Rep ID: 7051

Representation ID: 6930

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

In the heirachy it should differentiate towns and villages with safe access to good public transport as there is a significant difference between the villages with only daytime buses and dangerous roads to access other places and towns and villages with buses that included evenings and Sundayd or are within safe walking/cycling distance of a train station. For example Woolpit is limiting for people due to A14 junction but Bures St Mary is very accessible for those who do not drive.

More details about Rep ID: 6930

Representation ID: 6927

COMMENT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

Any scoring system becomes irrelevant if the services which accumulate the score are already over burdened .Applications in Thorndon have been granted on greenfield sites with meeting the sustainability criteria for NPPF ( no 5 year housing supply in place ) the overriding factor. The local school is already oversubscribed ,as is the High school in Eye .We have traffic and parking problems and yet these services still appear to count as a positive. Going forward the current and projected capacity for services/infrastructure to cope with a development rather than their simple existence should be taken into account..

More details about Rep ID: 6927

Representation ID: 6914

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

The Parish Council questions why Norton has been left off the settlement hierarchy for Thurston especially as Stowlangtoft, Beyton, Hessett and Tostock have been included

More details about Rep ID: 6914

Representation ID: 6855

OBJECT Gislingham Parish Council (Mr Chris Pitt)

Summary:

Gislingham has insufficient facilities to be classified as a Core Village and should be classified as a Hinterland Village.

More details about Rep ID: 6855

Representation ID: 6823

OBJECT Mrs Gillian Macdowall

Summary:

Tostock has been wrongly classified. There are no retail outlets so should score 0. We are 2 miles from the nearest village with ammenities, Woolpit, another 0. The broadband speed in Tostock is laughable and for the majority of people very poor indeed even with the best BT so a 1. There is a bus service but the service stops before 6pm so it would be impossible to use a bus as means of getting to and from a place of work, use the bus for accessing core settlements in the evening etc.
I make that a score of 6.

More details about Rep ID: 6823

Representation ID: 6787

OBJECT Dr John Webb

Summary:

In your Village Status scoring system, you have credited Sproughton with a Post Office which does not exist, and allotments which have been earmarked as a possible building site. The school is small and full to bursting so should be discounted.

More details about Rep ID: 6787

Representation ID: 6706

OBJECT Yaxley Parish Council (Mr Philip Freeman)

Summary:

Yaxley should not be classed as a hinterland village on the grounds that it only scores 8 points:
a) proximity to employment site = 2 points
b) bus stops = 2 points
c) proximity to a town = 2 points
d) Public house = 1 point
e) Village Hall = 1 point
A total of 8 points

More details about Rep ID: 6706

Representation ID: 6588

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

Positive scoring factors in this Hierarchy assessment are actually negative factors against creeping coalescence ( i.e the erosion of communities as individual entities) they therefore fly in the face of the NPPF and unfairly place Sproughton into the main settlement types. I would support a reconsideration of the scoring to create a balance.

More details about Rep ID: 6588

Representation ID: 6513

OBJECT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

I do not agree with the joint settlement hierarchy. There seem to be a number of anomalies in the ranking of villages and this multi-level approach is too complex. In addition, given the period of the plan is 22 years it is quite feasible that the rankings would change (e.g. convenience store closes, bus service ends) - what happens to the plan then?

More details about Rep ID: 6513

Representation ID: 6511

OBJECT Mrs Susan Bowen

Summary:

Little Waldingfield should be designated as a hamlet because:

no shop,
no school,
no daily bus service (1 a week is laughable)
no street lighting
no footpath out of the village
pub has been closed for a year
church service monthly
no bus service for school children this year

More details about Rep ID: 6511

Representation ID: 6479

OBJECT Mr M Crouch

Summary:

Woolverstone has no facilities of its own other than an old and poorly equipped Village Hall and a bus service, which continues to be cut back. Despite this, Woolverstone ends up being classified as a Hinterland Village and potentially suitable for new housing development (i.e. allocations). This makes no sense, hence the need to re-visit the points allocation system.

More details about Rep ID: 6479

Representation ID: 6421

OBJECT Ms Christine Fogg

Summary:

The settlement hierarchy does not use robust methodology. I have commented on the lack of transparency in the scoring on Q11.
Norton's scoring is clearly out of date.
Norton does not have a convenience store. In no way is a small shop, dependent on the sustainable operation of a petrol station, comparable with a Co-op or similar store as in Elmswell, Badwell Ash or Woolpit etc. The same applies for newsagents.

Norton is NOT within 5 kilometres of any urban setting or town.

When the scoring is applied correctly Norton is, without dispute, classified as a hinterland village.

More details about Rep ID: 6421

Representation ID: 6366

OBJECT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q12 The proposed hierarchy should be listed separately for each District. Narrower bands taking more criteria into consideration as discussed above. The hierarchy should then be weighted by population and households.

More details about Rep ID: 6366

Representation ID: 6285

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6285

Representation ID: 6276

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

Summary:

We support the identification of Combs as a Core Village owing to its close functional links with Stowmarket.

More details about Rep ID: 6276

Representation ID: 6224

OBJECT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

Wyverstone has been incorrectly allocated. Under the criterea used it should be a hamlet. Several of the facilities identified in gthe supporting document are not available (a)allotment, b)food, drink/public house, c)sport/leisure centre,d) bank butcher hairdresser ect

More details about Rep ID: 6224

Representation ID: 6205

OBJECT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

See qtn 11

More details about Rep ID: 6205

Representation ID: 6098

SUPPORT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

Agree the hierarchy. Great Waldingfield scores very highly and should be the focus for new growth.

More details about Rep ID: 6098

Representation ID: 6034

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* Village status distorted by scoring system, influences development location.
* Sproughton classed as CORE and also HINTERLAND village, can't be both.

More details about Rep ID: 6034

Representation ID: 5888

OBJECT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

Babergh has to appreciate and allow that any one Core village (or Hamlet) is very much different in all respects to another. It is therefore important that any development allowed preserves the essential character, appearance and qualities which make up the very essence and attractiveness of Suffolk's villages.

Infrastructure, local employment prospects, likely transport requirements (typically a car for each adult) and the lasting impact upon the existing locality needs to be properly assessed and weighted above simply granting approval to satisfy projected requirements based upon very questionable data.

More details about Rep ID: 5888

Representation ID: 5842

SUPPORT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5842

Representation ID: 5841

SUPPORT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Little Waldingfield Parish Council believes the classification of the village as a Hinterland is incorrect and that we should be reclassified as a Hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 5841

Representation ID: 5663

OBJECT mr simon downey

Summary:

The objection is based on the identification (in Q11) that the categorisation of a village in to more than 1 category is confusing and presents proper assessment of the subsequent options for patterns of growth. The example given in Q11 being Copdock and Washbrook being listed as both Hinterland and Ipswich Fringe. In my view it is clearly Hinterland based on the considerations laid out in the consultation document.

More details about Rep ID: 5663

Representation ID: 5644

SUPPORT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5644

Representation ID: 5569

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

The joint settlement hierarchy 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: 5569

Representation ID: 5449

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council agree with this approach.

More details about Rep ID: 5449

Representation ID: 5355

OBJECT Mr Paul Rogers

Summary:

There is clear evidence that the scoring is incorrect and Woolverstone should be classified as a Hamlet or Countryside Village.

More details about Rep ID: 5355

Representation ID: 5242

OBJECT Mr Jonathan Scott Barber

Summary:

Fressingfield within the Joint Plan is classed as a "Core Village - capable of sustaining greater levels of development than would have been assumed for a Primary Village". I am concerned that Fressingfield does not currently fit the criteria which the Joint Plan lays down for a "Core Village". Namely we do not have a "butcher/baker/fuel/hairdresser/ATM/newsagent" or a "chemist/pharmacy" or a regular enough "bus service" or a "sports centre" AND current Broadband speeds are below "required levels". All of these mean that Fressingfield should be re-designated as a "Primary Village" NOT a "Core Village".

More details about Rep ID: 5242

Representation ID: 5235

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Ives

Summary:

Gislingham has been designated as a Core Village but we feel the score allocated is too high:
Gislingham has a convenience store, but does not have a butchers or a bakers
Does not have a cash machine
No surgery
Limited bus service
Allotments are over two miles away
No hairdresser
Pub has limited opening hours and does not sell hot food
There is a mobile post van which is scheduled to be at the village hall carpark for 1hr 30 mins on Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday but it is not always dependable.

More details about Rep ID: 5235

Representation ID: 5207

OBJECT Mr Stephen Fisher

Summary:

From a Beyton point of view and with a modified ranking proposal I question the joint settlement hierarchy. There are anomalies in the rankings and this multi-level approach is too complex. In addition, given the period of the plan is 22 years it is quite feasible that the rankings would change (e.g. convenience store closes, bus service ends) - what happens to the plan then? A categorisation scheme for settlements is needed, but other factors such as population density and impact from adjoining settlements should be included to ensure that a balanced picture of the impact of any development.

More details about Rep ID: 5207

Representation ID: 5156

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

We accept the categorisation of Long Melford but cannot comment further for the reason set out in the previous answer.

More details about Rep ID: 5156

Representation ID: 5109

OBJECT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

The two councils should share a common basis for assessment. The current hierarchy proposed is a sensible way to approach settlement classification.
The matrix report for Stradbroke is incorrect and needs adjusting. Stradbroke possesses a Dr's Surgery (+2) and chemist/dispensary (+2),. The village has a small-scale employment site (+2) as it hosts a large national pet food manufacturer /employer (Skinners) and that business is proposing to expand to create additional jobs.
The matrix report on Wilby contains an error as the Pre School is not recorded.

More details about Rep ID: 5109

Representation ID: 5108

COMMENT Mrs Rosemary Jones

Summary:

Rickinghall Inferior and Rickinghall Superior are represented by one Parish Council and the boundary between them is very irregular, some of it impinging on The Street. Also the southern extensions of these parishes, along with Botesdale, are intimately linked. All these should be considered as one settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 5108

Representation ID: 5002

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Leeann Jackson-Eve)

Summary:

Redgrave has been incorrectly scored, it should have 13 points making it a mid-range hinterland village.

Please see full representation for full breakdown of points per service/facility.

More details about Rep ID: 5002

Representation ID: 4963

OBJECT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

On the basis above, we believe the points based system should be re-examined and adjusted. The benchmark figure of 18 pts is purely arbitrary and also should be looked at again.

More details about Rep ID: 4963

Representation ID: 4959

SUPPORT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Yes we agree with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 4959

Representation ID: 4861

SUPPORT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 4861

Representation ID: 4843

OBJECT Mrs Alison Crane

Summary:

Sproughton does not have a Post Office as stated just a small community shop.

More details about Rep ID: 4843

Representation ID: 4824

OBJECT Mr Allan Cousins

Summary:

Cockfield is termed a Core Village this is incorrect.The scoring needs reassessment.Cross Green is one of eight greens within Cockfield, exceeds 2kms from the main services/facilities and should be a separate, Hamlet/Countryside/Hinterland
entity scoring 5 points.

More details about Rep ID: 4824

Representation ID: 4676

OBJECT Mr Iain Maxwell

Summary:

The assessment of Norton is inaccurate and overstates the number of key facilities. Not a Core Village.

Shop at fuel station is not a Convenience store - used for standby rather then regular shopping. It does not prevent locals from using their cars to shop elsewhere. Selling newspapers in this shop does not make it a newsagent. These are part of the fuel station. The study therefore double counts these facilities.

Norton is not within 5KM of a town/urban area so should not be allocated 2 points.

Attached spreadsheet suggests more accurate assessment and reduces points to below 18

More details about Rep ID: 4676

Representation ID: 4595

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

The setlement hierarchy score for Woolverstone is too high. It should be rated 8 or below making it a Hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 4595

Representation ID: 4568

SUPPORT LAWSHALL PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dorothy Griggs)

Summary:

Lawshall Parish Council supports the retention of Lawshall's designation as Hinterland Village.

More details about Rep ID: 4568

Representation ID: 4564

SUPPORT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 4564

Representation ID: 4510

OBJECT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

Barking currently has no pub - the Barking Fox has been closed since December 2016 and no assurance it will ever reopen as a pub again. Barking should not be considered to have an open pub, so the overall points tally should be no more than 8 (or less - see Q 11 re bus stop) . Barking should be considered as Countryside (as it is now) and not upgraded to the status of Hinterland.
Why Hinterland? This is not the appropriate word for English Countryside not next to the sea - see dictionary definition of Hinterland.

More details about Rep ID: 4510

Representation ID: 4496

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

Broadly supportive, devil is in the detail, which needs checking.

More details about Rep ID: 4496

Representation ID: 4472

SUPPORT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The Parish Council agrees with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy based on SET2.

More details about Rep ID: 4472

Representation ID: 4231

OBJECT Christina Galvin

Summary:

I don't agree with the 'Ipswich Fringe'. Villages (e.g. Copdock, Sproughton, Belstead), separated by a green belt, should not be included alongside suburbs of Ipswich (e.g. Pinewood). Villages and towns are very different in terms of identity, community, amenities etc and should never be grouped together, just because they might be close geographically.
The hierarchy should be towns/urban areas then 'core' villages and hinterland villages (by population and a better categorisation of ACTUAL not theoretical access to amenities and towns - not geographical but taking into account access/traffic congestion

More details about Rep ID: 4231

Representation ID: 4190

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Sproughton is Special Landscape area, it is a divided village with two distinct parts. Special consideration should be given to its delicate development. The Hierarchy should consider more thoroughly the impact of such classifications. It cannot be both CORE and HINTERLAND.

More details about Rep ID: 4190

Representation ID: 4184

OBJECT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

High number of Core Villages. There could be two levels of Core Village, with some clearly more 'self contained' and therefore sustainable than others. 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: 4184

Representation ID: 4017

COMMENT West Suffolk (Mrs Amy Wright)

Summary:

West Suffolk looks forward to collaborating where significant settlement growth is likely as a result of recategorisation.

More details about Rep ID: 4017

Representation ID: 4003

OBJECT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

Village status appears to be distorted by the scoring system used, which in turn influences development location. Sproughton is listed as a Core and Hinterland Village it can't be both.

The scoring is based on distance to services and facilities; it should be based on travel time as the former tends to overstate accessibility. No account has been taken of capacity of an existing service in the scoring. Also, Sproughton is identified as having a P.O. which is has not!

Scoring factors could lead to Creeping Coalescence. suggest that the scoring criteria are revised to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence to a community

More details about Rep ID: 4003

Representation ID: 3935

OBJECT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

There seems to be a number of anomalies in the ranking of villages and this multi-level approach is too complex. I cannot reconcile the documents assessment of Beyton as 16 points, I could score only 9 points.
I agree that a categorisation scheme is needed, but other factors such as population density within catchment areas ( adjoining settlements ) should be included to ensure that a balanced picture of the impact of any development is produced

More details about Rep ID: 3935

Representation ID: 3923

OBJECT Mr Derek Fisher

Summary:

The score arrived at for Norton as a core village does not coincide with the facts. The C of E Primary School is absolutely filled to capacity and cannot cater for any new families; the nearest town B St E is well in excess of the stipulated distance to score; no pharmacy; no railway access; existing garage shop is basic and does not qualify as a convenience store. Norton should be re-assessed as a hinterland village.

More details about Rep ID: 3923

Representation ID: 3922

OBJECT Mr Martin Hayman

Summary:

TOSTOCK
By the document's own clear definitions Tostock should be classified as a hamlet and NOT as a Hinterland Village.
Tostock has no convenience store, primary school, proximity to strategic employment site, doctors surgery, chemist/pharmacy, super fast broadband, railway station, or proximity to an urban area. The bus stop provides a skeletal service and not daily.

At absolute best the village scores 4 pts. Bus stop (2), Village Hall (1), Recreation Ground (1).
It cannot therefore be categorized as Hinterland under the plan's descriptions.
Evidently, other villages have also been mis-represented.

More details about Rep ID: 3922

Representation ID: 3893

SUPPORT Caverswall Holdings Ltd/Highbridge Properties plc and West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust represented by CODE Development Planners Ltd (Ms Karen Beech)

Summary:

We support the identification of Sudbury in the draft local plan within the second tier of the settlement hierarchy (urban areas and market towns), after the Ipswich fringe area. Sudbury is the largest town within Babergh District with its associated services and facilities ranging from employment, education, recreation, medical, public transport and retail.

A significant level of new housing should be accommodated in Sudbury in order to comply with the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development and to help achieve the vision set out in the draft local plan.

More details about Rep ID: 3893

Representation ID: 3886

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

In considering the broad locations for new development, national planning policy requires that sustainable development is applied through balancing social, economic and environmental aspects.

Just get on and deliver sustainable development across the District. No settlement hierarchy needed to do this, especially this one which simplistically scores facilities/services/relationship to other settlements, all of which have no statistical relationship to the ability to deliver sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 3886

Representation ID: 3769

OBJECT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

Village status appears to be distorted by the scoring system used, which in turn influences development location. Sproughton is listed as a Core and Hinterland Village it can't be both.

The scoring is based on distance to services and facilities; it should be based on travel time as the former tends to overstate accessibility. No account has been taken of capacity of an existing service in the scoring. Also, Sproughton is identified as having a P.O. which is has not!

Scoring factors could lead to Creeping Coalescence. suggest that the scoring criteria are revised to include fairly balanced negative scores for the threat of Creeping Coalescence to a community

More details about Rep ID: 3769

Representation ID: 3753

OBJECT Mr John Morgan

Summary:

Norton cannot be considered as a Core Village! Your calculations of how Norton accumulates 18+ points is wrong. Norton is not within 5km of a town or urban settlement. You gave us 2 points for this when Bury is over 10km away! Our small retail shop inside the petrol station is not a 'convenience' store, nor a newsagent! Only the centre of the village has access to 76Mb+fibre. Your calculations give Norton 19 points. The truthful score is 13-15 points, at best, therefore making Norton a Hinterland Village.

More details about Rep ID: 3753

Representation ID: 3655

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Amend = 'In considering the broad locations for new development, national planning policy requires that sustainable development is applied through balancing social, economic and environmental Aspects'.

Just get on and deliver sustainable development across the District. No settlement hierarchy needed to do this, especially this one which simplistically scores facilities/services/relationship to other settlements, all of which have no statistical relationship to the ability to deliver sustainable development.
No post office in Sproughton, yet it scores 1 for having one.

More details about Rep ID: 3655

Representation ID: 3610

OBJECT Mrs Rosemary Blackburn

Summary:

Woolverstone should be classified as a hamlet. It is 7.8km to Ipswich not 5km as has been applied, and brings the number of points below the Hinterland criteria currently attributed.

More details about Rep ID: 3610

Representation ID: 3605

OBJECT Mr Michael Wright

Summary:

Cockfield, as a whole, is incorrectly categorised / scored.

Cockfield's scoring should be reduced from 19 to 13, re-categorising from Core to a Hinterland village.

In addition, CROSS GREEN is one of eight greens in Cockfield and should be assessed as a separate entity and would only score 4, and be classified as a hamlet / countryside:
* 1/ bus stop
* 1 x restaurant facility
* Broadband maximum 7-8mb

Other services / amenities are in well excess of 2km

More details about Rep ID: 3605

Representation ID: 3585

OBJECT Mr Andrew Kyriacou

Summary:

Little Waldingfield should be re-designated a hamlet. This would equate to far fewer than 8 new houses by 2036. SS0874 is completely inappropriate and should be entirely rejected.

More details about Rep ID: 3585

Representation ID: 3415

OBJECT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

There is no post office in Sproughton, yet it scores 1 for having a post office.
Overall the status of Sproughton is unclear and the actual facilities located within it and genuinely accessible in neighbouring settlements are overstated, casting doubt on the scoring in the hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 3415

Representation ID: 3386

OBJECT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

Wyverstone is incorrectly categorised. It has no
convenience stores
primary schools
proximity to a strategic employment site
doctors surgeries
chemists / pharmacies
railway station
proximity to a town / urban area (within 5km)
public house

It has a church, village hall and playground. Technically there is a bus service (Monday to Friday only) however the timing is unsuitable for all but workers on a regular 9-5 Monday-Friday shift.

Wyverstone should be classified as "Hamlets & Countryside"

More details about Rep ID: 3386

Representation ID: 3288

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

Summary:

It is agreed that there should be a joint settlement hierarchy. The new Local Plan is a
joint document and there should be a consistent assessment of the settlements and
their ranking within the hierarchy across both the Mid Suffolk and Babergh districts.

More details about Rep ID: 3288

Representation ID: 3126

OBJECT Mr Adrian Ward

Summary:

Copdock & Washbrook should not be within the "Ipswich fringe" - they are a hinterland VILLAGE

More details about Rep ID: 3126

Representation ID: 3022

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.

Road infrastructure is worth more points than a 2 hourly bus service!

More details about Rep ID: 3022

Representation ID: 2942

OBJECT Cllr Diana Kearsley

Summary:

See comment above regarding Gislingham - it should be at the same level as Wortham

More details about Rep ID: 2942

Representation ID: 2901

COMMENT Combs Parish Council (Mr Tony Bamber)

Summary:

We agree with the concept of a settlement hierarchy but we do not agree with the results set out in the joint settlement hierarchy, for the reasons set out in our comment on Question 11. At the very least the mechanism for developing the hierarchy should be amended:
i) so that small satellite villages without primary and/or secondary services themselves are not treated as settlements providing those services to other villages, and
ii) so that there is no implication that such villages will be subsumed by urban sprawl by virtue of inappropriate categorisation.

More details about Rep ID: 2901

Representation ID: 2888

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

I believe an approach based up a % increase on each existing settlement would be far better. If Babergh needs to increase its housing by for example 10% this could be applied to all settlements.
The exception to this would be where significant new transport links are provided the percentage increase could be higher to those areas that benefit.

More details about Rep ID: 2888

Representation ID: 2852

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

Summary:

In principle yes.

More details about Rep ID: 2852

Representation ID: 2779

COMMENT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 2779

Representation ID: 2764

OBJECT Peter Wright

Summary:

I object to Barking being classified as a hinterland village on the basis it has an Inn/Public House. This Inn would seem closed for the foreseeable future. Barking should therefore be regarded as a rural village.

Misnomer - Hinterland (dictionary) - district behind coast or river's bank. Barking has neither.

More details about Rep ID: 2764

Representation ID: 2733

OBJECT Wetherden Parish COuncil (Mrs Sonia Jewers)

Summary:

NO. For Wetherden they have not been correctly applied. Wetherden believes that it scores 8 based on the criteria NOT the 11 proposed in the consultation document. Specifically, no points should be given for items:
We have no bakers / butchers / hairdressers etc
We are 6.6km from our nearest large Town

Wetherden therefore falls in to the category of Hamlets and Countryside. PLEASE CAN THIS BE AMMENDED.

More details about Rep ID: 2733

Representation ID: 2589

OBJECT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council does not agree with the proposed hierarchy as it is believed that Cockfield and a number of other villages have not been correctly assessed.

This leads to the belief that the assessment process is flawed and provides no confidence in the outcome. It appears to conspire to promote Hinterland Villages into the Core Village designation to aid the higher apportionment of future development.

More details about Rep ID: 2589

Representation ID: 2499

SUPPORT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Lindsey Parish Council supports the settlement hierarchy as proposed

More details about Rep ID: 2499

Representation ID: 2462

OBJECT Carol Saunderson

Summary:

Alpheton:

* The parish does not have a baker, butcher, hairdresser, newsagent, bank, ATM or fuel station. 1 point has been awarded.


* There is a garage. It does not supply fuel.


* The parish has been given two points for allotments. There are no allotments in Alpheton.

* The parish has been given two points for peak time bus services (7-9am, 4-6pm). Although there are buses in the morning, the last bus of the day to the village from Bury St Edmunds leaves there at 5.05pm, which is too early for full-time workers in the town. Effectively the parish does not have a peak time service in the early evening.


On the basis of the information above, the parish should be re-assigned to the Hamlets and Countryside category.

More details about Rep ID: 2462

Representation ID: 2458

SUPPORT Monks Eleigh Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 2458

Representation ID: 2456

OBJECT Mrs Carol Ingleson

Summary:

Wyverstone should be classed as a hamlet and NOT a hinterland. We have no shop, no doctors surgery, no chemist, no railway station,we have a bus stop but the bus only runs twice a day.

More details about Rep ID: 2456

Representation ID: 2418

SUPPORT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Yes, Preston St Mary is now classed as a Hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 2418

Representation ID: 2378

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

We agree with the general approach. However we feel that Chelmondiston has been wrongly classified. Chelmondiston should remain (as currently) a HINTERLAND village, whilst Pin Mill should be categorised separately as a HAMLET and not incorporated with Chelmondiston for assessment purposes.

A letter has already been sent to Bill Newman explaining why we think the re-categorisation of Chelmondiston is wrong and our views must be taken into consideration.

More details about Rep ID: 2378

Representation ID: 2376

OBJECT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

As detailed in the response to question 11 the Parish Council were dismayed at the apparent lack of due diligence in applying the appropriate scores to the facilities demonstrated in the Parish Council's village. The impact this might have had, is currently experiencing and may impart to the village in the future is deeply worrying. All scores for each community listed needs to be confirmed with current documents, rather than relying on documents as old as 6 years.

More details about Rep ID: 2376

Representation ID: 2370

COMMENT Polstead Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Within the proposed Settlement Hierarchy, Polstead is identified as a Hinterland Village as it is presently. The Council has no issue with this designation and is unaware of any factors which might suggest a future variation.

More details about Rep ID: 2370

Representation ID: 2347

OBJECT Mr Albert Horn

Summary:

Bramford has been given a score of 29, which is surely a mistake. We have scored 4 on food & drink outlets and public houses. I can only think of the Indian restaurant, Chinese takeaway and Cock pub.
We have also been given 5 for bakers / butchers / hairdressers / newsagents / bank / ATM / fuel station. I am only aware of an ATM in the Co-op and a hairdressers accessed from Gippingstone Way.

More details about Rep ID: 2347

Representation ID: 2294

OBJECT Mr Barry Dixon

Summary:

Stowlangtoft has been wrongly classified as a Hinterland Village. Its points should be Proximity: 1, Bus: 2, Broadband: 2, Employment: 1, Church: 1, Total: 7.
All access is by narrow rural roads, with no footpath or cyclepath. This makes pedestrian or cycle access to services dangerous and impractical for the majority of the ageing population. No services whatever are available within the village. Some parts of the settlement are too far from services and the bus route for access other than by private car. There are few employment prospects within 5km. It should be a Hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 2294

Representation ID: 2163

OBJECT K&P Coghlin

Summary:

Why has Great Waldingfield had its designation changed from a hinterland village to a core one?

We have already had a substantional new housing development in recent years and it's difficult to see how the services we have in the village can possibly support the "large scale development" a core village may be subject to in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 2163

Representation ID: 2133

OBJECT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

No. There should be a much more comprehensive review of strategic development sites. A Hamlet could be an ideal location for a New Town development.

More details about Rep ID: 2133

Representation ID: 2125

OBJECT Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs)

Summary:

Hinterland village category is to large, taking in communities with widely varying levels of amenity which would all be subject to the same drive for "proportionate" development

SCORING IS INACCRATE. DRINKSTONE IS 8 MILES FROM A TOWN NOT 3, AND 2.5 MILES FROM A CORE VILLAGE NOT 1.5

More details about Rep ID: 2125

Representation ID: 2116

OBJECT Ann Preston

Summary:

Your information on Redgrave is very out of date as we lost our Post Office facility in the summer of 2003 together with our Village Shop. In November 2007 due to the tremendous efforts of volunteers we opened a tiny Community Shop in what had been the annex of the original shop and this only continues due to the efforts of the current volunteers. There are no other shops in the village.

Our only pub, The Cross Keys, closed with effect from 23rd October 2017. Another blow to a small community. Please update your records to reflect the actual facilities in Redgrave.

More details about Rep ID: 2116

Representation ID: 2115

COMMENT Mr Richard Furlonger

Summary:

Little Waldingfield is currently classified as a Hinterland Village, and yet it doesn't have services to justify this classification (9 points or above). I believe it should be considered as a Hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 2115

Representation ID: 2107

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs M Baker represented by Boyer Planning (Paige Harris)

Summary:

We agree with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy and the categorisation of Woolpit as a 'Core Village'. The number of services and facilities within the village, together with the housing and employment opportunities, and the accessibility of the village, means it is a very sustainable settlement.

We therefore believe that a 'Core Village' is an accurate representation of the level at which the settlement should be categorised and we would wish the categorisation of Woolpit to remain at this level.

More details about Rep ID: 2107

Representation ID: 2105

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

Summary:

I agree with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy and the classification of Haughley as a Core Village

More details about Rep ID: 2105

Representation ID: 2044

OBJECT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

I can't look at all but it seems many have been classed as Hinterland with little or no services. they need to be downgraded.

More details about Rep ID: 2044

Representation ID: 1980

SUPPORT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

I agree with this approach and I agree with the designation for Denham

More details about Rep ID: 1980

Representation ID: 1908

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Yes insofar as it applies to Palgrave. (It is for other Parishes to comment on their own settlements.)

More details about Rep ID: 1908

Representation ID: 1805

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Agree to support this approach

More details about Rep ID: 1805

Representation ID: 1740

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Support the outlined approach to this

More details about Rep ID: 1740

Representation ID: 1720

OBJECT Mrs Madeline Gray

Summary:

Owing to the number of points that can be accurately awarded I support Alpheton Parish Council in asking that it be re-assigned to the Hamlets and Countryside category.

More details about Rep ID: 1720

Representation ID: 1697

OBJECT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Whilst it is understandable to have a strategic hierarchy they appears to be anomalies in how the scoring has been assigned to various villages. Is the scoring weighted in favour of villages adjacent to towns? So there seems to be a lack of transparency with how the scoring has been applied.

More details about Rep ID: 1697

Representation ID: 1653

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council accepts the classification of the village as a Hinterland Village. However, it does not agree with the score of 15.

More details about Rep ID: 1653

Representation ID: 1652

SUPPORT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council agrees with the approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1652

Representation ID: 1619

OBJECT Bridget Sumner

Summary:

Alpheton:

We have a village Hall, place of worship, recreation ground = land around village hall, but no swings etc and only a small space and broadband up to 17mb. A total of 5 points.

Alpheton does not have a post office. We do have a garage, but it does not supply fuel nor convenience foods etc. The last bus leaves Bury at 5.05pm and therefore Alpheton does not have a peak time service in the evening. Alpheton does not have any public allotments and has been incorrectly awarded 2 points.

With a score 5, Alpheton should remain under Hamlets and Countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 1619

Representation ID: 1530

OBJECT Alpheton Parish Council (Julie Rix)

Summary:

Alpheton.

Alpheton has: village hall, place of worship, recreation ground (land adjacent to the village hall, but not large enough or level to accommodate a football pitch or cricket wicket), broadband up to 17mb. A total of five points.

Parish does not have a baker, butcher, hairdresser, newsagents, bank, ATM, fuel station, but has been given one point in this category. There is a garage, which does not supply fuel. No public land in use as allotments.

In the evening the last bus to the village from Bury St Edmunds leaves there at 5.05pm, far too early for full-time workers in the town.

The Parish Council asks that the parish be re-assigned to the Hamlets and Countryside category.

More details about Rep ID: 1530

Representation ID: 1526

OBJECT Mr Ken Watkins

Summary:

Alpheton

The parish does not have a baker, butcher, hairdresser, newsagents, bank, ATM, fuel station, but has been given one point in this category. The garage does not supply fuel. Parish Council does not have any allotments.

Two points for peak time bus services. In the evening the last bus to the village from Bury St Edmunds leaves at 5.05pm.

The facilities we have are: village hall, place of worship, recreation ground (by the village hall, but too small for football or cricket), broadband up to 17mb. A total of five points.

On the basis I would ask that the parish is re-assigned to the Hamlets and Countryside category.

More details about Rep ID: 1526

Representation ID: 1492

OBJECT Tostock Parish Council (Ron Perks)

Summary:

Tostock is wrongly scored, The village has no retail outlets, so should score 0 under Bakers/Butchers etc. Also proximity to Core village should score 0 it is 2 miles to Woolpit.

This would bring score to 8 or 9, making Tostock a hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 1492

Representation ID: 1482

OBJECT Stratford St Mary Parish Council (William Davies)

Summary:

Our village shop and post office closed earlier this year as Mr and Mrs Reynolds retired after 30 years running it and some of the business transferred across the road to the village garage but not the post office.The post office does not exist here any more.Also the new shop facility is a much smaller affair....I would hesitate to call it a convenience store,it sells newspapers ,soft drinks and confectionery that's all so I think we can deduct a couple of points off the total which takes it down to 16 from 18.Also one of our 3 village pubs is up for sale (The Anchor) so its future is uncertain so if that closed it would knock another point off the total.

Are you happy to revert back to Stratford St Mary being a hinterland village now?

More details about Rep ID: 1482

Representation ID: 1461

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

Summary:

This seems a sensible approach given the link between Districts

More details about Rep ID: 1461

Representation ID: 1437

OBJECT Ms Ann Tarran

Summary:

In relation to Cockfield the classification of core village is simplistic and wrong. Cockfield comprises 9 hamlets/greens of which only Great Green meets the core village criteria. This should be explicitly recognised otherwise development criteria will be wrong for these hamlets eg Cross Green with the potential of allowing inappropriate development.

More details about Rep ID: 1437

Representation ID: 1412

OBJECT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Sproughton:

It has been misclaimed that we have a post office which we don't as it was closed about ten years ago.

More details about Rep ID: 1412

Representation ID: 1391

SUPPORT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 1391

Representation ID: 1370

OBJECT Mr Gordon Leggett (Stoke Ash Parish Councellor) represented by Mr Gordon Leggett (Stoke Ash Parish Councellor)

Summary:

The figures are incorrect as to the facility that is numbered.
Please see updated attachment with Stoke Ash with a score of 8 and Thwaite with a score of 12

More details about Rep ID: 1370

Representation ID: 1362

SUPPORT Haughley Parish Council (Alf Hannan)

Summary:

We agree with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 1362

Representation ID: 1250

OBJECT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Following errors for Little Waldingfield:
Food/drink - our pub is currently shut, likely for another 12 months
Bus service - we only have buses twice a week, only a small number of hours apart*
Proximity to town - 4 miles from Sudbury
Proximity to core village - 2 miles from Great Waldingfield

* Impractical and dangerous to consider walking to the main road to catch the daily buses - we are missing about 400 yards of pavement, where there are blind and dangerous bends in the narrow B1115, where they have been a number of serious accidents over the years.

It appears that we only score 6, or at a bit of stretch 7.

More details about Rep ID: 1250

Representation ID: 1229

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

The criteria approach is based on proximity to key facilities. It should be noted that many hinterland villages are a short distance from core villages which support the hinterland. With the growth in electric vehicles giving low cost and low pollution travel over short distances a local cluster approach to hinterland around key core villages should be recognised.

More details about Rep ID: 1229

Representation ID: 1213

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I agree that Long Thurlow should be in the category of Hamlets and Countryside as it has no facilities at all. Not even a peak hour bus service. However, I would support retaining the current Countryside designation rather than identifying significant development sites in this smallest settlement category.

More details about Rep ID: 1213

Representation ID: 1105

OBJECT Simon Bell

Summary:

The settlement hierarchy score for Gislingham needs to be reviewed. The village has only a convenience store and there is no separate bakers, butchers, hairdresser, newsagent, bank, atm or fuel station. To give a maximum score of 5, as opposed to Zero, for these demonstrates a lack of understanding of the available services.
In addition, there is no Post Office (at least not in a building), nor any bus during peak time. Even the allotments are not in the village and must reached by car.
An accurate score for Gislingham would mean it is "hinterland" and not "core".

More details about Rep ID: 1105

Representation ID: 1102

OBJECT Simon Bell

Summary:

The settlement hierarchy score for Gislingham needs to be reviewed. The village has only a convenience store and there is no separate bakers, butchers, hairdresser, newsagent, bank, atm or fuel station. To give a maximum score of 5, as opposed to Zero, for these demonstrates a lack of understanding of the available services.

In addition, there is no Post Office (at least not in a building), nor any bus during peak time. Even the allotments are not in the village and must reached by car.

An accurate score for Gislingham would mean it is "hinterland" and not "core".

More details about Rep ID: 1102

Representation ID: 1041

OBJECT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Remove Great Ashfield from Great Bricett. they are not linked.
Also, per previous comments:
proposed hierarchy 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: 1041

Representation ID: 971

SUPPORT Mr. Gerald Battye

Summary:

Stoke by Nayland, Leavenheath and Little Horkesley are the correct hinterland villages for Nayland.

More details about Rep ID: 971

Representation ID: 967

OBJECT Mr Paul Macbay

Summary:

I'm the August 2017 evidence base documents you have incorrect information for Botesdale &Rickinghall -allocating points for - newsagent (closed down last year) - post office (no longer now closed) 3 public houses - incorrect 2 as the White horse is now a private house...this is concerning when your most upto date documents are being used to make planning decisions. Can you confirm this document will be corrected?

More details about Rep ID: 967

Representation ID: 939

OBJECT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Can not make the maths stake up!!
Great Ashfield/ Great Bricett split please.
Stowlangtoft to a countryside village
Cotton to Hinterland village
Westhorpe to hinterland village.
All Hinterland villages to have settlement boundary how ever small..

More details about Rep ID: 939

Representation ID: 794

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

Summary:

Fressingfield is incorrectly categorised as a Core Village. The assessment is wrong because:
0 points should be allocated for Butcher/Baker/fuel/hairdresser
ATM/newsagent; Chemist/Pharmacy; Bus Service; Sports centre/leisure centre. And one point should be awarded for broadband speed.

When the corrections are made Fressingfield scores 13, not 23 in respect of facilities available. Fressingfield should be classed as a" hinterland village" (18 and above being a core village).

More details about Rep ID: 794

Representation ID: 747

OBJECT Mr John Kelsall

Summary:

Objection to Fressingfield Classification:
Differences highlighted between Settlement Facilities Audit (2017) and Settlement Hierarchy Review (2017).
* No retail outlets
* No small scale employment sites
* No chemist/pharmacy
* No regular bus service
* No sports/leisure centre. Football pitch with no team. Two tennis courts and bowling green rarely used
* Many parts of the village have slow broadband - 1 point would be fairer

Fressingfield should have 13 points and must be corrected. The manipulation of the points score downwards to accommodate villages would be outrageous.

More details about Rep ID: 747

Representation ID: 703

OBJECT Mrs Patricia March

Summary:

Woolverston is approximately 7.6K from Ipswich. not 5k. No allotments available now.

More details about Rep ID: 703

Representation ID: 702

OBJECT Cllr Clive Chopping

Summary:

The score of 20 for Gislingham is incorrect. The maximum score would be 13, the difference being:
1) We don't have Butchers/Bakers/Hairdressers/Newsagents/Bank/ATM/Fuel station yet we have been scored 5 for this category.
2) We don't have daily peak time bus services to/from a higher order settlement yet we have been scored 2 points for this.
The Services and Facilities Audit of Aug 2017 acknowledged that none of these services are available in the village so how they have come to materialise in the settlement hierarchy review is a mystery. According to the criteria Gislingham is a hinterland village.

More details about Rep ID: 702

Representation ID: 644

OBJECT Mr Matthew March

Summary:

Woolverstone:
Firstly the assertion that the village is within 5k of Ipswich is not true. Freston is shown as outside the 5k area and is actually closer to Ipswich. the distance to my home from Ipswich Magistrates' Court is actually 8k.
Secondly, there are no allotments available in Woolverstone. it is my understanding that the Diocese which owns the relevant area is not offering any more and is only awaiting the demise of the current elderly allotment holders to remove them.

More details about Rep ID: 644

Representation ID: 609

OBJECT mr david martin

Summary:

Chelmondiston scoring as Core village is out of date.
1 convenience stores
2 primary schools
0 proximity to a strategic employment site
0 doctors surgeries
0 chemists / pharmacies
2 bus stops (with daily peak-time services to/from a higher order settlement)
0 railway station (with daily peak-time services to/from a higher order settlement)
0 broadband of up to 76Mb fibre or more (super-fast speed)
0 proximity to a town / urban area (within 5km)
4 Total thus not a core village

More details about Rep ID: 609

Representation ID: 598

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Mockford

Summary:

There appears to be factual errors in the scoring. Our village (Drinkstone) is 8 miles from a town, not 3 and the main settlement is 2.5 miles from a core village, not 1.5.

The hinterland village category is too large and should be broken down further to distinguish those villages scoring low on the hinterland scale.

More details about Rep ID: 598

Representation ID: 473

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

We believe the points allocated to Woolverstone are inaccurate because:

Woolverstone is more than 5km from Ipswich, therefore should not be awarded 2 points.

Allotments have been closed to new tenants for a number of years, empty allotments are not being re-let. There is effectively no allotment provision in the village. Should be awarded 0 points instead of 1.

It is currently awarded 11 points, we believe it should only receive 8 points making it a Hamlet or Countryside village.

More details about Rep ID: 473

Representation ID: 460

OBJECT Wingfield Parish Council (Mr Tim Young)

Summary:

Wingfield is classified as a hinterland village because, according to documentation supplied, it scores between 9 - 17 on facilities available.
We discovered a number of discrepancies. Wingfield has none of the shops designated, ATM, bank or petrol station. Neither do we have a recreational ground or allotment.
The suggestion that we enjoy a standard speed of broadband (10Mb plus) is rubbing salt into a festering sore. No one in the village enjoys a standard broadband service.

By our calculation the score for Wingfield is 3 not 10

We ask that Wingfield is reclassified as a hamlet/countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 460

Representation ID: 456

OBJECT 1947 Terry Williams

Summary:

I would like to see the calculations for making Gislingham a Core Village. I have investigated the criteria on how this decision is arrived at and find I can only find 13 points, not 18 points that is required.

More details about Rep ID: 456

Representation ID: 436

OBJECT Dr. J. E. Castro and 1 other

Summary:

Objection to Fressingfield being classified as a Core Village. Facilities have been incorrectly scored. No points should be given to Butcher/Baker/fuel/hairdresser
ATM/newsagent; Chemist/Pharmacy; Bus Service; Sports Centre/leisure centre. Broadband speed should be given 1 point. When the corrections are made Fressingfield scores 14, not 23 in respect of facilities available. Fressingfield should be classed as a" hinterland village" (18 and above being a core village).

More details about Rep ID: 436

Representation ID: 414

OBJECT Adrian Bridge

Summary:

Norton Little Green is identified in the consultation maps as a separate settlement.
But in this hierarchy it is not identified separately, It ought to be in the list of Hamlets.
There is a danger therefore that it becomes included with Norton as a Core Village.

More details about Rep ID: 414

Representation ID: 388

OBJECT John Brownfield

Summary:

The assessment links Mendham and Withersdale together. 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. If you assessed Withersdale Street in its own right it would score 7. Hardly a Hinterland village. Also the scores for Mendham are wrong. No shop, no bus service!!

Don't understand what "..... duty to Co-operate." below means!!!! Have to tick a box though.

More details about Rep ID: 388

Representation ID: 347

OBJECT Councillor Rachel Eburne

Summary:

My comments regarding the Facilities Survey are:

Wetherden (Mid Suffolk) does not have a pre-school but does have allotments.

Haughley (Mid Suffolk) has a fuel station and also has allotments.

More details about Rep ID: 347

Representation ID: 265

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I Agree

More details about Rep ID: 265

Representation ID: 257

OBJECT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

Wyverstone has the following errors in the settlement hierarchy review:

Food/Drink/Public Houses - Document allocates 1 point, should be 0
Bank/Butchers/Hairdressers - Document allocates 1 point, should be 0
Sport/Leisure Centre - Document allocates 1 point, should be 0
Allotment - Document allocates 1 point, should be 0
Broadband - Document allocates 1 point, should be 2

Wyverstone should be in the Hamlets and Countryside category rather than Hinterland Villages.

More details about Rep ID: 257

Representation ID: 172

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

The list seems to broadly reflect the lack of infrastructure across the area

More details about Rep ID: 172

Representation ID: 98

OBJECT Christopher Pitt (Mr Christopher Pitt)

Summary:

As a resident of Gislingham, using the points system explained, it is impossible for the village to reach a score of 18 points to make it a core village. It has two of the main criteria, a school and a convenience store and it does have a village hall but it fails on all the other criteria. It should be allocated "Hinterland" status.

More details about Rep ID: 98

Representation ID: 38

OBJECT Stratford St Mary Parish Council (William Davies)

Summary:

Stratford St Mary Parish Council wishes to object to our village being classified as a Core village as we has always previously been classified as a Hinterland village.

Page 24 of the 331 page dossier which you sent recently to our parish clerk outlines the facilities which a village has to have in order to be classified as a Core village and in our opinion we only score between 9 and 17 points ,not 18 or more so would you please review your decision and confirm we shall remain a Hinterland village?

More details about Rep ID: 38

Representation ID: 35

OBJECT Mr Simon Garrett

Summary:

Remark relating to inaccuracy of information for Ashfield-cum-Thorpe in the evidence document "BMSDC-Topic-Paper-Settlement-Hierarchy-Review.pdf", which results in mis-classification of Ashfield-cum-Thorpe as "Hinterland Village" when on the scoring system given it should be "Hamlet & Countryside".
Ashfield has no shops or retail so scores 0 rather than 2. Ashfield has no allotments, so scores 0 not 2 for Recreation.
Thus the total score is 6 not 9.

More details about Rep ID: 35

Representation ID: 3

COMMENT Prof George Constantinides

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 3

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

Powered by OpusConsult