Home > Planning > Planning Policy

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

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Q13

Representation ID: 13221

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

Summary:

Option BHD1 - County Town focused - is the only option which properly reflects the geographic and functional relationship between Babergh district and Ipswich. It is the most sustainable of the proposed options in terms of accessibility to employment, public transport, services and facilities, and is supported.
To accommodate the proposed 50% growth allocation, the Local Plan will need to identify significantly more development land in the vicinity of Copdock and Washbrook than is currently proposed for allocation in Appendix 3 of the Consultation Document.

More details about Rep ID: 13221

Representation ID: 13211

COMMENT A R Hall & Sons represented by Savills (Mr William Lusty)

Summary:

MHD2. We consider it to be important that the Councils plan for a balanced approach to growth in the District. Relying on larger strategic sites would unduly endanger the ability to deliver sufficient housing early in the plan period. Conversely, should the Council pursue a wholly dispersed approach to its development strategy, then this is unlikely to be sustainable. As such, a balanced approach is considered the optimum approach to take in ensuring for a development strategy that is both sustainable and deliverable. With this balanced approach it is essential that the needs of the rural parts of the Districts are met and that their vitality is maintained. Essential that rural parts play a good part in the delivery of growth within the Districts.

More details about Rep ID: 13211

Representation ID: 13159

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

Summary:

Object to the Councils adopting any single one of the Options set out above. We consider Option 1 would be detrimental to the growth of other sustainable settlements in the Districts. Option 2 - concerns there are only a few recognised Market Towns. Option 3 - small number of transport corridors - too restrictive. Option 4 - delivery issues associated with such a large settlement. If this option was chosen, the Councils should ensure that sufficient shorter-term deliverable sites are included.

We consider that the Councils should not be providing percentages to illustrate the growth for each, but should rather provide arbitrary percentages to allow for flexibility.

More details about Rep ID: 13159

Representation ID: 13146

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

BHD4. Losing the rural character of our villages by creeping urbanization is an anathema to all. This is one area where spreading a little across all areas is misguided though perhaps easy to do. Often villages do not have the infrastructure to deal with the increase in housing. Purpose built new settlements in areas where there is a need and the infrastructure can be front-loaded would be far more preferable than ad hoc allocations. There is no mitigation for a small village such as Woolverstone with a projected increase of at least 30% in traffic if the housing developments for which planning approval has been granted are built. New settlements would avoid that scenario and could be based where they are needed and close to social and physical infrastructure such as roads, communications, energy etc.
Second choice would be BHD1 for reasons of infrastructure etc.

More details about Rep ID: 13146

Representation ID: 12921

OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

The scoring system used is somewhat arbitrary in how it allocates points to particular items. The results just happen to point towards the disposition of sites that have come forward rather than any realistic consideration for housing need and rural growth considerations at a parish level. In short the options proposed just appear to be a mechanism to justify the major sites that have come forward

More details about Rep ID: 12921

Representation ID: 12864

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

Summary:

We would advocate options BHD1 and BHD3 as it directs development towards the main urban and employment centre of Ipswich and the key corridors of the A12/A14.

We consider that ensuring current and future residents have easy access to jobs should be a key priority. To
this end we would advocate Option BHD1 -Ipswich Fringe Area with Option BHD3 as an alternative,
the 'transport corridor focussed' approach to growth. Focussing new development close to Ipswich and
close to the key transport corridors of the A14 and A12 will facilitate the delivery of employment and residential
development in locations well placed to meet the needs of Ipswich and be attractive and provide ease of
access to those seeking employment space and access to the primary employment markets.

More details about Rep ID: 12864

Representation ID: 12833

SUPPORT Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (Ms Laura Townes)

Summary:

Options BHD3 and MHD3 are supported as they propose to distribute growth across sustainable settlements, locating new homes where there is demand, without over concentration in one location or the need for large scale infrastructure to enable delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 12833

Representation ID: 12817

COMMENT Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council (Angela Chapman)

Summary:

Option 4 for the Ipswich Fringe is our preferred solution.

More details about Rep ID: 12817

Representation ID: 12802

OBJECT East Bergholt Parish Council (Valerie Ayton)

Summary:

There is no rationale provided for, nor implications expected from the different settlement/spatial growth options. All the latest urban economic, planning literature and research points to the case for the continued growth of urban areas and the benefits which these bring......and hence their more rapid growth than hinterlands and rural areas. This is no accident. In this context BHD1 has to be the best one overall. It will offer the best chance for the continued vitality of the main towns, offers resource efficiency and sustainable outcomes, as well as a clear focus for jobs, homes and investment. Simply no justification for BHD2. BHD3 is a non starter as the transport corridors cannot cope today and the plan offers no clear proposals to improve these. BHD4 is not sustainable. Group new housing with employment its a no brainer.

More details about Rep ID: 12802

Representation ID: 12741

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

o The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites.
o JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer.

More details about Rep ID: 12741

Representation ID: 12654

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

Due to the settlement types designated to Sproughton in the Hierarchy scoring the first three options propose over 50% of growth in our designations, only the last option reduces this to 35%. The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites. JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer. Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is will preserve the qualities of existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12654

Representation ID: 12583

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

Object to all options due to the Ipswich fringe element which has been arbitrarily imposed presumably arising from the secretive Ipswich Fringe Policy Forum. Only 4 offers an not in my backyard option and due to the imposition of the Ipswich Fringe element this is the only one that is acceptable. Options just appear to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites. * JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12583

Representation ID: 12540

COMMENT Llanover Estates represented by LRM Planning Ltd (michael rees)

Summary:

We support a balanced town / rural approach to distribution as set out in MHD2. Indeed, we note that over the past 16 years some 60% of new housing has been across rural areas. In this regard we agree with the Council that it is important to maintain the overall success of the area and this has been the pattern of growth in recent years

More details about Rep ID: 12540

Representation ID: 12469

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

Summary:

Object to the Councils adopting any single one of the Options. We consider the County Town focussed approach would be detrimental to the growth of other sustainable settlements in the Districts.

Option 2: We would raise concerns that there are only a few recognised Market Towns within the Districts, which could have implications of adopting this approach.

Option 3: Small number of transport corridors in the District. Too restrictive and overlook the benefits of railway stations and public transport links.

Option 4: Raise concerns over the ability of a new settlement to deliver a significant proportion of the district's growths during the Local Plan period. Delivery issues associated with new settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 12469

Representation ID: 12454

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

Summary:

Options BDH2, MHD2, and BDH3, MHD3 are considered to reflect the best options for the spatial distribution for housing across Mid-Suffolk & Babergh District Council. These options focus new housing growth towards sustainable settlements, ensuring development and growth is apportioned and directed to existing Urban Areas and Market Towns to support existing services and facilities.
It is important to recognise that development should reflect the settlement hierarchy and the need to support viable communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12454

Representation ID: 12388

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

Summary:

No best option, my client has a preference for MHD1, on the basis that the settlement hierarchy is amended as mentioned in q11. This option focuses new housing growth towards existing, sustainable settlements, and therefore ensures that additional development is apportioned to urban areas which already comprise a range of services and facilities.

Considered there should be no spatial distribution policy as this could potentially stifle sustainable sites coming forward in the most appropriate locations, which would meet the Districts' housing needs. A more flexible approach is considered to be necessary in order to reflect NPPF objective os significantly boosting supply whilst maintaining flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 12388

Representation ID: 12332

COMMENT Strutt & Parker Farm Ltd. represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)

Summary:

There is a risk that if development was to be focussed in the Ipswich fringe area, urban areas and market towns (BHD1), then economic investment and local spending may too prioritise these areas and existing facilities and services in core and hinterland villages will suffer. There is a need to support the vitality of rural communities and their existing services and facilities, and encouraging modest growth to maintain local spending and investment, as well as social variety, will play a key role in this. The consideration of rural villages and market towns for housing growth will also help to ensure that there are economically active local communities and supply of working-age population to support rural and small-medium businesses outside of the main urban areas.

More details about Rep ID: 12332

Representation ID: 12312

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

Summary:

Object to any single option. County Town Focussed Approach would be detrimental to the growth of other sustainable settlements in the Districts.

BHD2/MHD2 we raise concerns that there are only a few recognised Market Towns within the Districts, which could have implications of adopting this approach.

BHD3/MHD3 we consider that adopting this approach alone would be too restrictive and overlooks the benefits of railway stations and public transport links, which can make development in more remote locations sustainable.

We would raise concerns of the ability of new settlements to deliver a significant proportion of the districts' growths during the plan period. Aware of deliverability issues associated with such a large settlement and would propose that Councils should ensure sufficient shorter-term deliverable sites are included within the emerging Local Plan. Avoid providing fixed percentages to illustrate the growth for each, but should rather provide arbitrary percentages to allow for flexibility.

More details about Rep ID: 12312

Representation ID: 12290

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

Summary:

Considered there is no best option, clients preference for BHD3/MHD3. Development should be focused in locations in close proximity to A14/A14 trunk roads. Sustainable development located along the A14 and A12 roads and rail routes would improve opportunities to improve existing facilities in Core Villages, Market Towns and Urban Areas and provide better opportunities for existing services and facilities.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the most appropriate options would be to not have a spatial distribution policy as it could potentially stifle sustainable sites coming forward in the most appropriate locations, which would meet the District's housing needs. More flexible approach is considered necessary to reflect the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 12290

Representation ID: 12258

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

Summary:

None of these reflects the current spatial distribution, meets local needs or addresses the greatest gap between house prices and median incomes.

More details about Rep ID: 12258

Representation ID: 12157

SUPPORT LRM Planning Ltd (michael rees)

Summary:

We support a balanced town / rural approach to distribution as set out in MHD2. Indeed, we note that over the past 16 years some 60% of new housing has been across rural areas. In this regard we agree with the Council that it is important to maintain the overall success of the area and this has been the pattern of growth in recent years

More details about Rep ID: 12157

Representation ID: 12139

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

Summary:

Important that the JLP directs a proportion of housing growth to suitable hamlets such as Holton St. Mary. JLP should direct sufficient growth to rural settlements to ensure rural communities are sustained, and rural facilities and services remain viable and continue to perform an important role for the existing community. NPPF makes clear that one of the core planning principles that should underpin both plan-making and decision-making is the need to support rural communities. In recognising these requirements, the JLP should ensure that the spatial distribution supports all communities within the districts and direct suitable levels of development towards appropriate hamlets such as Holton St Mary.

More details about Rep ID: 12139

Representation ID: 12126

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

Summary:

No best option, my client has a preference for BHD3/MHD3, which focuses new housing growth towards existing, sustainable settlements, therefore ensuring that additional development is apportioned to urban areas which already comprise a range of services and facilities.

Most appropriate options would be to not have a spatial distribution policy. Whilst all future development should respect the settlement hierarchy, it is considered that such a policy could potentially stifle sustainable sites coming forward in the most appropriate locations, which would meet the Districts' housing needs. A more flexible approach is considered to be necessary in order to reflect NPPF objective of significantly boosting supply whilst maintaining flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 12126

Representation ID: 12102

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Document highlights that half of the local plan area's population live in villages and rural areas. It is therefore essential that a meaningful proportion of growth is directed to rural settlements, in particular Core Villages.

Local Plans much ensure they promote sustainable development throughout their areas and NPPF paragraph 55 establishes the need to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Must be considered carefully through the Council's proportionate evidence base. Rural settlements can make a meaningful contribution towards meeting overall housing needs in a sustainable manner.

Housing White Paper is a signal that settlements will need to meet their share of local housing need.

More details about Rep ID: 12102

Representation ID: 12084

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

Summary:

Considered that there is no best option, my client has a preference for Option BHD3/MHD3. This option focuses new housing growth towards existing, sustainable settlements, and therefore ensures that additional development is apportioned to urban areas which already comprise a range of services and facilities.
However, notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the most appropriate option would be to not have a spatial distribution policy. Whilst all future development should respect the settlement hierarchy, it is considered that such a policy could potentially stifle sustainable sites coming forward in the most appropriate locations, which would meet the Districts' housing needs. A more flexible approach is considered to be necessary in order to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework objective of significantly boosting supply whilst maintaining flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 12084

Representation ID: 12076

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

Summary:

While it is considered that there is no truly 'best' option, as each represents some form of compromise, our client has a preference for Option MHD2 - 'market town/rural area balance' - since this option seeks an appropriate balance between urban and rural development and recognises that this pattern of growth has been consistent and successful in recent years. This option would see approximately 15% of the total housing requirement being met through site allocations in Hinterland Villages, which we would suggest is both appropriate and sustainable. It would also help to sustain existing services and facilities in these villages. It does not overly rely upon a new settlement or urban extensions coming forward, which are notoriously slow to deliver.

More details about Rep ID: 12076

Representation ID: 12069

OBJECT Lord Andrew Phillips OBE

Summary:

no mention of Chilton Woods development in on the Town's eastern edge new estates containing a population equivalent to that of Clare!
Sudbury has, the 3 poorest areas in BDC. To further undermine the cohesion of the Town by excessive development is wholly counter-productive.
To add to that, the JLP says far too little, and insufficiently forcefully when it does, about the whole feel, ambiance, culture, attraction of its remarkable mix. Betjeman told me once that he thought it one of the finest market towns in the UK.

More details about Rep ID: 12069

Representation ID: 12059

OBJECT Heathpatch Limited represented by Wincer Kievenaar Architects Limited, (Mr Craig Western)

Summary:

The percentage range for housing delivery for Babergh is between 15 - 30% in the
various options. This is too low to satisfy serving and reflecting the existing residential spatial distribution, and providing housing where it is most needed by boosting supply to address affordability. Of the Babergh options, BHD2 is most favourable to meet these objectives although the 10% spread is too imprecise and not repeated in the other options.

More details about Rep ID: 12059

Representation ID: 12053

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

Summary:

Considered that there is no best option, my client has a preference for Option BHD2. The council considers that a mix of urban and rural development is important to maintain the overall success of the area and this has been the pattern of growth in recent years. Urban Areas, Market Towns and Core Villages are suitable and sustainable locations for development and therefore should be identified, with appropriate formally identified allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 12053

Representation ID: 12033

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

Summary:

We do not believe new settlements are likely to be the answer to addressing Babergh and Mid Suffolk's overall housing requirement. Housing supply would likely to take a considerable period of time. Robust evidence would be needed to show that it would be deliverable in the Plan period. A number of new settlements are being proposed in North Essex, we do not consider there to be any serious scope to deliver new settlements in Babergh and Mid Suffolk in the near future. Furthermore, we consider that they are less likely to be able to deliver the volume of new housing required to the timescales required if housing supply is to be significantly boosted.

More details about Rep ID: 12033

Representation ID: 12032

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

Summary:

We are of the opinion that option MHD3 is the best and most appropriate options listed. We consider Stowmarket and Sudbury, in particular, to have significant scope to accommodate further growth given their size. Whereas, other alternative options
which would result in greater amounts of growth along the fringes of Ipswich would
do little to assist in balancing growth to ensure that it addresses the needs of
communities throughout Babergh and Mid Suffolk districts. Stowmarket benefits from being on the mainline railway line.

More details about Rep ID: 12032

Representation ID: 12015

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

Both options MHD2 and MHD3 recognise the contribution that Core Villages can make towards delivering a sustainable and deliverable Local Plan strategy. We consider that option MHD3 will allow the Local Plan to best take advantage of the opportunities presented by the main transport corridors and their surrounding settlements. Bacton is well-connected by virtue of its proximity to Stowmarket; of particular value is its accessibility to the railway station at Stowmarket. Bacton is well-related to the transport corridors in Mid Suffolk and therefore can play a role in securing sustainable development in the District.

More details about Rep ID: 12015

Representation ID: 11998

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

Both options MHD2 and MHD3 recognise the contribution that Core Villages can make towards delivering a sustainable and deliverable Local Plan strategy. We consider that option MHD3 will allow the Local Plan to best take advantage of the opportunities presented by the main transport corridors and their surrounding settlements. Mid Suffolk benefits from regionally-significant transport corridors including the A14, A12 and the two rail routes which pass through. Elmswell is very well placed to take advantage of these links.

More details about Rep ID: 11998

Representation ID: 11963

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

Summary:

It is noted that all of the options for proposed spatial distribution of housing seek to direct 5% of the total quantum to settlements in the Hamlets and Countryside tier of the settlement hierarchy.

As noted elsewhere within this representation, but of particular relevance to the distribution of housing, regardless of the percentage of overall growth that is directed to the Districts' smaller settlements, it is imperative that the JLP supports the vitality of such communities.

As part of this, and as recognised through the NPPF, the JLP should seek to ensure the retention of rural facilities and services in the Districts; which perform a vital role for rural communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11963

Representation ID: 11951

OBJECT Fieldens Ltd represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

It is considered that the Councils should proceed with a combination of the options outlined, rather than focussing solely on one growth strategy. We also consider that future development should be considered and determined on a case by case basis and on its own merits, rather than its compatibility with the proposed housing spatial distribution.

We also consider that whilst a new settlement would accommodate a large quantum of growth in the long term, it is unlikely this would be deliverable during this emerging Local Plan period, and therefore should not be relied upon as a growth strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 11951

Representation ID: 11939

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

Summary:

Regardless of the percentage of overall growth that is directed to the Districts' smaller settlements, it is imperative that the JLP supports the vitality of such communities. As part of this, and as recognised through the NPPF, the JLP should seek to ensure the retention of rural facilities and services in the Districts; which perform a vital role for rural communities. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) explains how Local Planning Authorities should support sustainable rural communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11939

Representation ID: 11831

OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

o The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites.
o JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer.
o Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11831

Representation ID: 11793

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

Summary:

BHD3 is supported as it will focus new development on existing transport infrastructure network, rather than being dependent on significant improvements to infrastructure elsewhere. Evident that the District has limited infrastructure of any scale, therefore appropriate to focus on what infrastructure is available. Will ensure that the existing rural character of those areas lacking in infrastructure will not be significantly affected as a result of infrastructure improvements.

2km of an A road junction or mainline train station is arbitrary and small scale - unclear how it is measured. More appropriate response would be to suggest that settlements or suitable locations with reasonable links to the identified transport infrastructure will be the focus for new development. Greater acknowledgement should be given to the wider area located alongside the A14 corridor and major rail routes to distinguish locations without such proximity to the principle transport infrastructure in the form of a note on the proposals map.

More details about Rep ID: 11793

Representation ID: 11762

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Spatial Distribution
*Four options offered: 1) County Town Focused, 2) Market Town/Rural balance, 3) Transport Corridor Focused. 4) New Settlement Focused. Due to the settlement types designated to Sproughton in the Hierarchy scoring the first three options propose over 50% of growth in our designations, only the last option reduces this to 35%.
*The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites.
*JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer.
*Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities

More details about Rep ID: 11762

Representation ID: 11676

SUPPORT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

The best option is BHD1. This is because the Ipswich fringe area is the area which can contribute most to the economy and will provide opportunities for employment services and facilities. There is too much development already coming forward on sites which are not allocated.

More details about Rep ID: 11676

Representation ID: 11663

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

Summary:

We do not consider that the Councils should focus solely on one growth strategy, but rather a combination of the options that have been set out above.

We also consider that future applications and their circumstances should be considered on their own merits, rather than solely with compatibility of a proposed housing spatial distribution. For example, enabling development, which will not necessarily be set out in a policy, should also be recognised and considered in certain circumstances. In the case of the Haughley Park Consortium, an enabling residential development is being proposed in order to financially allow for the enhancement of a setting of a listed building.

More details about Rep ID: 11663

Representation ID: 11633

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

Summary:

There is no significant variation between many of them in terms of the apportionment rate of the district's overall housing requirement to 'Urban Areas and Market Towns'. BHD2 and BHD3 are realistic options. We believe that 35% of housing provision should be located within these areas.

We consider Stowmarket and Sudbury, in particular, to have significant scope to accommodate further growth given their size. Whereas, other alternative options would result in greater growth on the Ipswich fringes would do little to address the needs of communities throughout Babergh and Mid Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 11633

Representation ID: 11607

COMMENT South Suffolk Constituency Labour Party (Ms Emma Bishton)

Summary:

We support BHD4 - new settlement focused. A new settlement allows for
thorough and considered investment in infrastructure to create a new
community, and can ensure that the right mix of housing is put in place from the
start, to meet the needs of older and younger residents. Allowing for nearly 35%
of new houses on a new settlement also lessens the likelihood of large
developments being 'tagged-on' to existing villages with inadequate attention to
roads, schools and so on. Babergh is relatively rich in land, so a new settlement is
an achievable and desirable option.

More details about Rep ID: 11607

Representation ID: 11592

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

Summary:

With the intrinsic environmental qualities of the Babergh area, and the high level of unmet housing need in the Ipswich area, Option BHD1 would appear to
be the most appropriate. Apart from the A12 and London to Ipswich rail routes, Babergh is not traversed by significant transport routes and in view of proposed new settlements in north-east Essex, Options BHD3 and BHD4 do not represent suitable alternatives. Option BHD2 has some merit, however, in view of the comments made in response to Questions 11 and 12 considerable care will need to be exercised to ensure that the necessary infrastructure required to support additional dispersal is available given the generally poor base that currently exists and the high cost of provision.

More details about Rep ID: 11592

Representation ID: 11584

OBJECT Heathpatch Limited represented by Wincer Kievenaar Architects Limited, (Mr Craig Western)

Summary:

Relating to Babergh Options. More than half the population live in villages and rural areas and many rural parts of the Districts are unaffordable for many. DCLG initiative for increasing housing supply is to boost supply in areas where affordability is an issue. These factors would suggest a high level of new housebuilding in rural areas, Core Villages have the advantage of being the best area to serve the need of families in the District.
Percentage range of between 15 - 30% for Core Villages is too low. BHD2 is most favourable, although the 10% spread is too imprecise.

More details about Rep ID: 11584

Representation ID: 11542

OBJECT Annette Powell

Summary:

Object to all options. Ipswich fringe element has been arbitrarly imposed presumably arising from the secretive Ipswich Fringe Policy Forum which has excluded fringe parish participation from its discussions.

Options appear to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites. JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer.

Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11542

Representation ID: 11520

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

Summary:

Important that an ambitious approach is adopted to ensure that the District maximised its potential for growth over the Plan period. Vital that the value of growth at an appropriate scale within the rural area is recognised and development in these locations can have a positive impact on sustainability which extends beyond the immediate locality of a single settlement.

Housing White Paper supports growth in villages and therefore growth scenarios should ensure there is a positive approach to development in the rural areas.

We would like to provide more detailed comments on the Councils' proposed distribution strategy in due course in light of the Government's proposed standard OAN methodology.

More details about Rep ID: 11520

Representation ID: 11497

COMMENT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )

Summary:

GCPC preference is Babergh Option BHD1 - County town focussed.
New developments should be in areas of notable growth, such as the Ipswich Fringe with better rail links and roads.
GCPC believes that Babergh BHD4 - New settlement focussed is not a viable option.

More details about Rep ID: 11497

Representation ID: 11413

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

Substantial growth in the Core and Hinterland villages of 40-55% in BDH2, 40% in BDH3 would be grotesquely unsustainable and will simply perpetuate and magnify unsustainable environmental conditions and increase commuter movements.

Rural sites pepper-potted across the districts may be a softer touch and easier to deliver, but we really doubt that it is good long term planning to allow this to reach 60% of supply. Babergh must establish a strong focus based upon its urban development and transport hubs, with a sensible, limited proportion directed to smaller centres as per BDH1.

More details about Rep ID: 11413

Representation ID: 11365

COMMENT Greater London Authority (Juliemma McLoughlin)

Summary:

We welcome the spatial distribution options. If the new-settlement ­focused option becomes a preferred option, please let us know whether the Council would be
interested in considering strategic collaboration on the longer-term scale of further growth opportunities.

More details about Rep ID: 11365

Representation ID: 11335

COMMENT Eleanor & Guy Barker & Mrs V Aitken represented by Savills (Mr William Lusty)

Summary:

Important for the Councils to plan for a balanced approach to growth. Placing undue reliance upon larger strategic sites would endanger the Councils in delivering sufficient housing early in the plan period. Conversely a wholly dispersed approach it unlikely to be sustainable.

Essential that the needs of rural parts of the Districts are met, and their vitality is maintained. NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for rural areas, in order to ensure that local communities and services and facilities are maintained accordingly. In view of the above, it is essential that the rural parts of the District and Core/Hinterland Villages play a good part in the delivery of growth within the districts. Therefore BHD2 is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 11335

Representation ID: 11325

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites and not to create a fair and unbiased selection policy.
* JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and merging communities is not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities works - that's how villages have been run for a thousand years.

More details about Rep ID: 11325

Representation ID: 11300

COMMENT La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs N Wright)

Summary:

La Ronde Wright Limited supports Options 3 (Transport Corridor Focussed) MHD3
and 4 (New Settlement Focused) MHD4

More details about Rep ID: 11300

Representation ID: 11220

OBJECT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

This is a divisive approach, encouraging subjective responses, rather than a more strategic and objective approach. What is needed, and appears to be notably absent, is a thorough and objective analysis underpinning both the four options put forward and the percentages within them. There should be analysis of employment trends over the plan period, and out of area commuting.

A better understanding of the projected trends in the rural economy and home based working would enable informed choices to be made on whether more rural areas of the district(s) can sustain any significant growth without creating unsustainable increased in car commuting.

More details about Rep ID: 11220

Representation ID: 11196

COMMENT Mr Nigel Roberts

Summary:

No rationale provided for the different settlement/spatial growth options. Latest research points to the case for continued growth of urban areas and the benefits which these bring. In this context BHD1 is the best option. Offers the best chance for the continued vitality of the main towns, offers resource efficiency and sustainable outcomes, as well as a clear focus for jobs, homes and investment. No justification for BHD2 based on the understanding of the urban dynamic. BHD3 is a non starter as the transport corridors cannot cope today and the plan offers no clear proposals to improve these. BHD4 is not sustainable. Group new housing alongside employment together in or close to urban locations. It is demonstrably the best solution.

More details about Rep ID: 11196

Representation ID: 11185

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

Summary:

Options BHD2 and BHD3 are considered to reflect the best options. These focus new housing growth towards sustainable settlements, ensuring additional development is apportioned and directed to the Core Villages to support existing services and facilities, thereby achieving a market town/rural area balance.

It is important to recognise that development should respond to the settlement hierarchy and the need to support viable communities. As stated within the Planning Practice Guidance, a thriving rural community depends, in part, on retaining local services and community facilities; and rural housing is essential to ensure the viable use of these local facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 11185

Representation ID: 11171

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

MHD1 - As a core village we would want to keep our development proportionate to the population and we do not want to further develop our hamlet villages.

More details about Rep ID: 11171

Representation ID: 11116

COMMENT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

In terms of spatial distribution, the Council can see the advantages of Options MHD1, and MHD3 as these options would better link into accessing jobs and job opportunities not so readily available from hinterland or rural locations. An important factor is that the roads infrastructure serving Rattlesden is very constricting and lorry movements in particular are resulting in structural damage to local infrastructure and buildings. Any new settlement must be planned with regard to transport links and wider infrastructure availability to minimise the impact of development on the rural heritage of not only Rattlesden but also all Suffolk villages

More details about Rep ID: 11116

Representation ID: 11095

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

Summary:

Options BHD2 and BHD3 are considered to reflect the best options for the spatial distribution for housing across Babergh District Council. These options focus new housing growth towards sustainable settlements, ensuring additional development is apportioned and directed to existing urban areas and Market Towns to support existing services and facilities.

It is important to recognise development should reflect settlement hierarchy and the need to support viable communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11095

Representation ID: 11082

COMMENT R A Edmondson

Summary:

If you are so keen on abiding by govt. dictates be honest and build a new town away from existing villages and compensate the few affected homes accordingly. I hope as Councillors you are able to stand up and be counted for preserving villages instead of destroying them.

More details about Rep ID: 11082

Representation ID: 11068

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

Summary:

Important that the JLP directs a proportion of housing growth to Core Villages to support communities and ensure local service and facilities can be sustained. This approach is supported by NPPF paragraph 14 and 28, and NPPG on supporting sustainable rural communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11068

Representation ID: 11048

COMMENT Mr C. Voetmann represented by Savills (Rachael Morey)

Summary:

Important that option chosen is deliverable over the plan period. Settlement hierarchy approach is an appropriate approach to take. Placing growth in a range of settlements within the District provides a logical approach to addressing sustainability and importantly provides for a range of sites that can come forward. The identification for sites for both housing and employment must respond to the market and consequently it is entirely appropriate that a range of sites in a range of locations should be identified within this plan to have a robust framework in place to accommodate new growth.

More details about Rep ID: 11048

Representation ID: 11033

COMMENT chattisham and hintlesham parish council (mrs samantha barber)

Summary:

Obviously any PC would choose the housing development which would have least impact on them , why wouldn't they ?For us, this would be Option 4 or Option 1 . But as Option 1 means even more traffic on the A1071 then we would opt for Option 4.

More details about Rep ID: 11033

Representation ID: 10990

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that option MHD3 - transport corridor focussed is the most suitable as this option would provide the most sustainable approach by providing development close to the transport network, allowing for people to be less reliant on cars and so addressing the strategic policies of mitigating climate change.

More details about Rep ID: 10990

Representation ID: 10945

OBJECT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

We regard this as a divisive approach, encouraging responses based on inference of what the local consequences might be, rather than a more strategic and objective analysis.

Analysis should include predicted employment trends over the plan period, methods of working and opportunities to encourage rural enterprise.

Significant problems with the analysis that there is a need to accommodate a shortfall of houses in Ipswich. Makes no allowance for changes in economic background. E.g. Haven Gateway ports have stalled. Limited evidence of market pressure to complete flats in Ipswich. It has significant infrastructure problems. Need to merge villages on edge of Ipswich is unproven, and undesirable.

More details about Rep ID: 10945

Representation ID: 10908

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

BHD1 is supported. The support for this policy is expanded to propose that the local plan does not identify any site for residential development in villages [or villages in the AONB's].

More details about Rep ID: 10908

Representation ID: 10894

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

Summary:

Important that the JLP directs a proportion of housing growth to Core Villages such as Thurston. Important sufficient growth is directed to rural settlements to ensure they are sustained and services remain viable. NPPF makes clear that one of the core planning principles that should underpin both plan-making and decision-making is the need to support rural communities. NPPF paragraph 28 requires planning policies to support economic growth in rural areas, including retention of services and facilities. Paragraph 55 states that rural housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Clearly Thurston represents the type of settlement to which the NPPF suggests housing should be directed to.

More details about Rep ID: 10894

Representation ID: 10828

OBJECT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

Four options offered. Due to settlement types designated to Sproughton in the Hierarchy scoring the first three options propose over 50% of growth, only the last option reduces this to 35%.
* combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen for JLP just appears to promote site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify sites.
* JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative thinking but continuing urban sprawl / merging communities not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with own identities is, thereby preserving qualities of existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 10828

Representation ID: 10769

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

MHD1 - support - this reduces the need for rural commuting and reduces the need for greater rural infrastructure spending by over expanding rural settlements into virtually small towns.
Possibly MHD2.
MHD3 is not supported with access locally to just the A140.
MHD4 will likely prove difficult to identify suitable sites and provision of an effective infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 10769

Representation ID: 10730

COMMENT Brent Eleigh Parish Council (Mr William Grosvenor)

Summary:

In terms of the four options, councillors' preference is for Option 1.

Additionally councillors broadly support the concept of a new settlement if required to meet housing targets in the longer term. The problem is that Babergh itself has modest infrastructure, with no really main routes or main line railway stations that could be a focus for development. If a new settlement is proposed it would need to be located around the A134 or A1071, possibly by consolidating an existing linear or fragmented settlement to minimize impact on the countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 10730

Representation ID: 10682

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

Summary:

Subject to the caveat that 35% of housing distribution is allocated to Core Villages, Option BHD2 is broadly supported, to assist rural housing supply, affordability, social vitality and the retention of services and facilities, compliant with national policy for rural areas. Beyond this scenario, the LPA could consider a 40% allocation to Core Villages.

More details about Rep ID: 10682

Representation ID: 10628

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

County town - building more houses around towns puts more burdens on the county councils rather than alleviating them
Market town/rural balance - building houses around market towns and in rural areas creates sprawl and creep, but does not have the jobs, facilities or infrastructure to sustain the growth.
transport corridor - if more houses are transport corridor focussed the trains and buses would not be able to cope with the increased volume of commuters and there would be gridlock
new settlement - would destroy the countryside and require new roads and infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 10628

Representation ID: 10621

OBJECT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* I object to all four options due to the Ipswich fringe element which has been arbitrarily imposed presumably arising from the secretive Ipswich Fringe Policy Forum which has excluded fringe parish participation from its discussions.
* Of the Four options offered: 1) County Town Focused, 2) Market Town/Rural balance, 3) Transport Corridor Focused. 4) New Settlement Focused. Only 4 offers an not in my backyard option and due to the imposition of the Ipswich Fringe element this is the only one that is acceptable
* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10621

Representation ID: 10613

COMMENT Harrow Estates (Miss Cindy Wan)

Summary:

Transport corridor focussed approach should be taken forward as the preferred approach, this would be compatible with paragraph 30 of the NPPF and Suffolk Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2031. Growth should be located around the key road and rail links.

Opportunities to deliver development alongside transport improvements should be explored. For example Elmswell Parish Council has longstanding aspirations for a relief road. The Councils should work with Elsmwell Parish Council to review the feasibility of the scheme and consider whether a sufficient housing can be allocated to support its delivery.

There would also be merit in identifying the number of units allocated to each particular settlement, having regard to the sustainability of these settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 10613

Representation ID: 10568

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

Summary:

We would suggest that the options that propose an over-reliance on the delivery of further strategic sites should be discounted (Options 1 and 4) for both Babergh and Mid Suffolk. This is based upon the failure of the current urban-focused growth strategies of both Districts to deliver significant levels of growth. Instead we strongly endorse the dispersal approach described in Options 2 and 3 with a preference towards Option 3 (BHD3 and MHD3) due to its focus on access to jobs and its ability to strengthen the regional economy.

More details about Rep ID: 10568

Representation ID: 10555

COMMENT Countryside Properties (Mrs Emma Woods)

Summary:

BHD2 and BHD3 are viewed as the most sustainable options for growth. BHD1 would direct 2,105 new homes into Copdock and Washbrook and Sproguhton without further evidence to demonstrate how the infrastructure can accommodate this level of growth it is difficult to provide further information at this point.

BHD$ is likely to face challenges associated with the delivery of new settlements:
a) significant amount of time to start delivering houses
b) significant amount of upfront infrastructure
c) lower affordable housing contributions due to higher upfront costs
d) Plan would be reliant on delivery of a large scheme, failure would result in a short fall

More details about Rep ID: 10555

Representation ID: 10514

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites and not to create a fair and unbiased selection policy.
* JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and merging communities is not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities works - that's how villages have been run for a thousand years.

More details about Rep ID: 10514

Representation ID: 10414

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites and not to create a fair and unbiased selection policy.
* JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and merging communities is not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities works - that's how villages have been run for a thousand years.

More details about Rep ID: 10414

Representation ID: 10260

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We would propose an approach that combines all growth options would be most suitable and would be most in accordance in National Planning Policy. We also consider that the Councils should avoid providing fixed percentages to illustrate the growth for each, but should rather provide arbitrary percentages to allow for flexibility.

More details about Rep ID: 10260

Representation ID: 10060

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

Both Districts contain many settlements of historic interest with sensitive landscape
settings. From a historic environment perspective, it is difficult to rank the scenarios
in order of preference given the range and distribution of heritage assets throughout
the two districts. Each scenario will have an impact on heritage assets, and it will
depend to some extent on where site allocations are identified and the quantum of
development as well as its design. Each option considered should include
appropriate reference to the historic environment. It will be important to preserve
settlement character and to avoid coalescence with neighbouring settlements.
Growth options within existing settlement centres should reflect the scale and
character of the surrounding townscape.

More details about Rep ID: 10060

Representation ID: 9986

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites and not to create a fair and unbiased selection policy.
* JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and merging communities is not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities works - that's how villages have been run for a thousand years.

More details about Rep ID: 9986

Representation ID: 9926

COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

Spatial Distribution - BHD1
The council has already stated that necessary infrastructure is of prime importance before any new development is considered, therefore it seems obvious that the bulk of housing should be sited in the Ipswich fringe area or with easy access to the A14 and A12 corridors. Indeed if 'Since 2001, approximately 60% of new housing growth has come forward in 'rural' areas across Babergh and Mid Suffolk' , it seems it is now the time to redress the balance towards the urban areas and protect the rural landscape which is so important for tourism, our largest business.

More details about Rep ID: 9926

Representation ID: 9916

COMMENT Professor Robert Turner & Mrs J.M. Turner

Summary:

If there is to be a new distribution it should be in the form of a completely new village.

More details about Rep ID: 9916

Representation ID: 9847

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

Option MHD4. With only one large town in Mid Suffolk development in and around Stowmarket has outstripped its ability to provide sufficient social infrastructure. A new 'garden village' settlement would be designed to provide necessary infrastructure in new premises with sufficient space and accessibility.
New settlement option will give an opportunity to develop a new community with the necessary community facilities. This is a better option than encouraging developers to promote large areas on the outskirts of core villages which would require settlements around the district to provide new, or upgrade existing, facilities using CIL. Better value for money, and better in planning terms, to have new purpose-built infrastructure and community facilities for a new settlement than ad hoc provision in many different villages.

More details about Rep ID: 9847

Representation ID: 9826

COMMENT Earl Stonham Parish Council (Mrs Jennie Blackburn)

Summary:

Pages 29-32 of the document state that the main impact of the designation is the amount of development Earl Stonham might be expected to accommodate in future under the Spatial Distribution Options, ranging from 5-15%. We note that the District Council does not indicate a preferred option. However, it speaks positively about the number of non-allocated sites which have come forward in the past in rural areas. This could be significant with Earl Stonham's designation as a Hinterland Village with a defined Settlement Boundary (see further comments below).

The Parish Council wish to seek confirmation from the District Council that the Transport Corridor Focussed option refers only to settlements within 2km of a junction with the A12 and A14, not the A140 or A1120.

More details about Rep ID: 9826

Representation ID: 9812

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

Summary:

Subject to any further revisions to the above options and any subsequent amendments to the Plan made in light of the Government's proposed standard OAN calculation methodology, we would like to provide more detailed comments on the Councils' proposed distribution strategy in due course. We reserve further detailed comment until later stages of the Plan preparation process.

More details about Rep ID: 9812

Representation ID: 9786

OBJECT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

1Most new housing should be in the towns and large villages (up to 80%).

More details about Rep ID: 9786

Representation ID: 9701

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

The percentages given in each area appear to be arbitrary. While one can classify the variously sized settlements, this is just a manmade classification. Urban areas, market towns, core villages, hinterland villages and hamlets all vary in their composition and this needs to be taken into account with careful consideration so as not to destroy the individuality of the settlements.

New settlement would be the best option. Avoids over-development in villages. One is seeing the destruction of the character of towns such as Framlingham (not mentioned in the lists on page 25) with the overdevelopment of building projects.

More details about Rep ID: 9701

Representation ID: 9525

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

NONE of the options provide a logical proposal and do not take into consideration significant historical and forward plan criteria, such as the Route Based Strategy, North Essex economic and housing growth and past housing development including permissions granted but not started.

More details about Rep ID: 9525

Representation ID: 9407

COMMENT Mr Prior represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)

Summary:

As a Core Village, Woolpit is recognised as having a range of services and facilities, therefore site(s) should be allocated that recognises the opportunity of development in the Wool pit over the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 9407

Representation ID: 9380

COMMENT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

Option: MHD1 County Town focused

This supports sustainable growth opportunities and will be the best option environmentally. It would lead to more housing in key areas, reducing carbon emissions and traffic load in surrounding areas.
Housing in Beyton village should be developed to support high value/high professional business. This will attract the appropriate residential property in Beyton, the area will require improved local area infrastructure, this would include more practical access to the A14 and other traffic options to facilitate low risk and environmentally-friendly measures, e.g. improvement of the Fishwick Corner to Bury Road to facilitate Thurston traffic bypassing Beyton.

More details about Rep ID: 9380

Representation ID: 9360

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

Of the options proposed in the document, BHD4

Opportunity to be bold, innovative and creative. Continuing the urban sprawl, and relying on shoring up already overstretched local services lacks imagination. The creation of a new purpose built settlement/s, carefully planned with adequate and modern services and infrastructure, allows that community to establish its own unique identity. The creation of new settlements may not, of itself, lead to improvement of services, infrastructure, environment, biodiversity, etc. elsewhere, but it is less likely to damage it whilst at the same time preserving as much as possible of what is already here and valued.

More details about Rep ID: 9360

Representation ID: 9326

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

Summary:

Primarily my client supports the 'Market town/rural area balance' and 'Transport corridor focused' options for spatial distribution. The A140 should be designated as a strategic corridor.

More details about Rep ID: 9326

Representation ID: 9279

COMMENT Mrs S Caesar

Summary:

Preferred option : NEW SETTLEMENTS with infrastructure in place before building starts, otherwise it is not sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 9279

Representation ID: 9276

COMMENT Mr D Caesar

Summary:

Preferred option: New settlements with infrastructure in place before development commences.

More details about Rep ID: 9276

Representation ID: 9270

COMMENT Elmsett Parish Council (Andrea Newman)

Summary:

We believe that the path you should follow is county town focused and our concern is how you then allocate the percentage of new homes in the Hinterland Village category as we believe there should be a roughly even proportion of the total for that category spread across all of the Hinterland Villages. Employment allocations should have a different criteria, based on the ability of the transport network.

More details about Rep ID: 9270

Representation ID: 9235

COMMENT The Gooderham Family and ESCO Developments Ltd represented by Cheffins Planning & Development (Mr Jon Jennings)

Summary:

Support options MDH2 and MDH3 but do not consider that MDH4 is a suitable alternative

More details about Rep ID: 9235

Representation ID: 9190

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Of the options proposed in the document, BHD4.

Simply continuing the urban sprawl, and relying on shoring up already overstretched local services in the hope that they can cope with increased demands lacks imagination. The creation of a new purpose built settlement or settlements, carefully planned with adequate and modern services and infrastructure, allows that community to establish its own unique identity rather than adopting someone else's, adding to diversity of the District's communities. It also adds greater value and attractiveness to those seeking new homes in Babergh. The creation of new settlements may not, of itself, lead to improvement of services, infrastructure, environment, biodiversity, etc. elsewhere in Babergh, but it is less likely to damage it whilst at the same time preserving as much as possible of what is already here and valued for what it is.

More details about Rep ID: 9190

Representation ID: 9155

COMMENT Wendy Shorrock

Summary:

A planning approach which is more New Settlement Focused would enable existing communities such as Sproughton to retain their village identity. I favour an approach which goes down the bold, innovative and creative route, rather than encouraging Ipswich to pursue 'creeping coalescence' which will ultimately destroy the local communities in its immediate vicinity.

More details about Rep ID: 9155

Representation ID: 9137

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

Summary:

Recommend broadly MHD3, as amended by Intermediate Villages
Ipswich Fringe Area 20%
Urban Areas and Market Towns 30%
Core Villages 25%
Intermediate Villages 10%
Hinterland Villages 10%
Hamlets & Countryside 5%

More details about Rep ID: 9137

Representation ID: 9001

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

County Town / Transport Focused: The reason for this is the infrastructure that is already in place. The smaller settlement areas currently struggle with Education, Health and transport capacity. There are more facilities and it is more economically viable to develop on an existing infrastructure reliving pressures on the rural areas and market towns that were not designed for the additional growth. Focusing on existing transport connections will reduce carbon footprint through better public transport links.

More details about Rep ID: 9001

Representation ID: 8933

SUPPORT Mrs Jessica Fleming

Summary:

Support MHD2, but with more capacity allowed for hamlets and countryside development

More details about Rep ID: 8933

Representation ID: 8857

COMMENT Mr Simon Pearce

Summary:

We are losing the rural character of our villages and what is special about them in this "spread them evenly" around the villages policy. An entirely new settlement in a sustainable location would be more sensible.

More details about Rep ID: 8857

Representation ID: 8769

COMMENT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

Summary:

Proportional distribution would be best for example carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities rather than large scale developments based on size of land offered up in random locations. The expected Babergh population growth of 8000 by 2036 (9%) could be applied to each community - Sproughton grow by 120 (50 or so new houses).
Low impact on community infrastructure, encourage small scale employment enterprises, reduce the need to travel, enhance and grow the desirable aspects of communities and provided opportunities for local developers and labour to be part of the growth agenda - inward investment/wealth retained locally.

More details about Rep ID: 8769

Representation ID: 8752

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

BHD4 and MHD4, as this would give the opportunity to build houses and employment in one place

More details about Rep ID: 8752

Representation ID: 8593

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

Summary:

Recommend broadly MHD3, as amended by Intermediate Villages
Ipswich Fringe Area 20%
Urban Areas and Market Towns 30%
Core Villages 25%
Intermediate Villages 10%
Hinterland Villages 10%
Hamlets & Countryside 5%

More details about Rep ID: 8593

Representation ID: 8533

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

New development and housing should be distributed across the district.
This ensures that the entire district benefits and diluted the direct impact.

More details about Rep ID: 8533

Representation ID: 8531

OBJECT Mr Michael Beiley

Summary:

For "Hamlets and Countryside" here needs to be far greater clarity on actual housing numbers rather than % figures of the overall total.
I note that for all options,5% of the total number of houses are allocated to "Hamlets and Countryside".It is critical to recognise,for each hamlet,the aggregate number of houses proposed rather than consider each site on it's merits.
e.g. in a hamlet such as Long Thurlow with currently around 50 houses, three sites averaging 8 houses have been identified .Each in isolation might be acceptable but developing all three would result in a 50% increase - absurd, unacceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 8531

Representation ID: 8268

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council favours option BHD4 and recommends the creation of a new settlement. Such an approach will focus housing in an area where employment is available and where infrastructure already exists or can be most economically adapted or created. A new coherent settlement is likely to be attractive to developers and encourage delivery.

Development of a new settlement will take some, but not all, pressure off smaller communities that have little employment potential and poor local infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 8268

Representation ID: 8258

COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)

Summary:

Recommend BMS identify where potential to pool resources from adjacent/same corridor settlements for S106 (Sustainable Travel-bus service). Lack of alternative options to private car may impact Essex highway network.

Babergh shares Essex borders and certain crossing points eg A137 at Manningtree physically constrained. Possible developments near borders seem sufficient size to impact Essex Highway network.

Concerned JLP does not actively promote developments to encourage sustainable travel. Potential to bring additional traffic on rural cross border roads, not designed to carry such flows. ECC identifies locations considered most likely to impact Essex where robust sustainable transport provision would be welcomed.

More details about Rep ID: 8258

Representation ID: 8194

COMMENT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

BHD3 is best as it relies on road infrastructure being suitable to support new development

More details about Rep ID: 8194

Representation ID: 8135

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Losing the rural character of our villages by creeping urbanization is an anathema to all. This is one area where spreading a little across all areas is misguided though perhaps easy to do. Often villages do not have the infrastructure to deal with the increase in housing. Purpose built new settlements in areas where there is a need and the infrastructure can be front-loaded would be far more preferable than ad hoc allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 8135

Representation ID: 8043

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

Summary:

For Mid Suffolk, MHD2 market town and rural area balance would be my preferred option. I don't understand how the proportions meet the descriptor for MHD3. Surely Ipswich is at the key junction of several transport corridors, railway, A14, A12 and A140, and yet it is offered the lowest proportion of development for the Ipswich fringe.
Exploit the parts of Suffolk that could withstand new developments. Have more new standalone communities: "They are intended to be of a scale of at least 1,500 homes and genuinely new stand-alone communities, rather than extensions to existing towns or villages.

More details about Rep ID: 8043

Representation ID: 8008

COMMENT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

BHD1 and MHD1, The County Town Focused options, are preferred on the basis that Ipswich is the county town and provides the greatest level of employment and services and has the best connections to the wider transport network. This approach protects the market towns and core villages, many of which are historic centres, from disproportionate levels of new development which could harm their character.

More details about Rep ID: 8008

Representation ID: 7965

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

Tattingstone Parish council would support BHD1.
The majority of growth is centred where the principal services are located. Large growth in Core, Hinterland villages and Hamlets would create environmental, unsustainable locations, increase in commuter and other traffic and danger to the natural environment which is a feature and strength of the area.

More details about Rep ID: 7965

Representation ID: 7930

SUPPORT Hadleigh Town Council (Mrs Carol Bailey)

Summary:

HTC supports the balance of market town area growth. We would support the transport corridor focussed option.

More details about Rep ID: 7930

Representation ID: 7889

COMMENT Mr David Watts

Summary:

County town focussed. Much better to have one big town than have the lovely countryside blighted. Tourism is important for our area and it must remain rural and unspoiled, not a series of suburban developments tacked on to lovely old villages such as Long Melford and Lavenham

More details about Rep ID: 7889

Representation ID: 7884

OBJECT Mr Simon Wood

Summary:

No established village should have it's population increased by silly percentages.
Look at the projected housing requirement. Check it for accuracy. Spread the requirement evenly.
Increasing a village from 560 houses to 2000+ is just ridiculous

More details about Rep ID: 7884

Representation ID: 7843

COMMENT Green Light Trust (Mr Ashley Seaborne)

Summary:

Green Light Trust strongly recommends Option BBHD1 - 'county town focussed' option.
This is because if the Core Villages are asked to take more than 10% growth they will no longer be villages. And if Hinterland Villages are asked to take
More than 5% growth, a village like Lawshall will lose its distinctive character of small hamlets/settlements spread between rolling farmland and its wildlife and biodiversity will be adversely affected.

More details about Rep ID: 7843

Representation ID: 7785

OBJECT Mr John Foster

Summary:

None of these

More details about Rep ID: 7785

Representation ID: 7664

SUPPORT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

The best option is BHD1. This is because the Ipswich fringe area is the area which can contribute most to the economy and will provide opportunities for employment services and facilities. There is too much development already coming forward on sites which are not allocated.

More details about Rep ID: 7664

Representation ID: 7598

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

BHD4.
Continuing the existing urban sprawl without proper provisioning of infrastructure, destroying the identities of existing communities and our heritage assets is not good stewardship. Planning should be sustainable and forward-thinking

More details about Rep ID: 7598

Representation ID: 7513

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

I find this whole process completely arbitrary and adversarial but the one that will get the most votes is BDH4 as it would hopefully not impact on oneself. But I do actually see many benefits beyond that.
* It can be carefully planned with adequate and modern services and infrastructure
* A new village/town that can establish its own unique identity rather than adopting another communities
* Could provide a new railway station with proper parking better equipped to handle commuters from the surrounding area
* Designed with forethought, with care for the environment and integrated into the landscape

More details about Rep ID: 7513

Representation ID: 7500

COMMENT Dr John Caesar

Summary:

Preference for MHD4 (since infrastructure and sustainability can be designed in from the outset), and second for MHD1, since there are more realistic options for sustainable transport strategies (cycle ways, bus routes etc.) on the fringes of Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 7500

Representation ID: 7367

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

BHD4.
Continuing the existing urban sprawl without proper provisioning of infrastructure, destroying the identities of existing communities and our heritage assets is not good stewardship. Planning should be sustainable and forward-thinking.

More details about Rep ID: 7367

Representation ID: 7348

COMMENT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

Option BHD2 - market town/rural area balance. Assuming this allows communities to grown their own areas organically in smalll, high quality (but including truely affordable) housing. It might also mean land costs are kept down by breaking the monopoly on development land by the large developers.

More details about Rep ID: 7348

Representation ID: 7214

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

BHD4 Creating new settlements may not itself lead to improvement of services , environment, infrastructure etc elsewhere in Babergh, it is less likely to damage it and preserving what what is valued in the community of Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 7214

Representation ID: 7097

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

BHD1 as it tends to concentrate development around areas of higher employment, thus limiting the need to travel long distances with all the associated damage that would cause

More details about Rep ID: 7097

Representation ID: 7069

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

BHD1 Because Ipswich has appropriate road structure in place, employment and business opportunities and investment should be encouraged to encourage regeneration and growth.

More details about Rep ID: 7069

Representation ID: 7034

SUPPORT Mr David Marsh

Summary:

Option BHD1 and MHD1 - The focus should be on developing Ipswich as the commercial power house for South Suffolk rather than spreading development thinly across the district. High priority should be given to developing the 35.5 hectares of land at the former Sproughton sugar-beet factory briefly touched upon in the plan (page 48).

More details about Rep ID: 7034

Representation ID: 6936

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

The Parish Council supports Option MHD4 - new settlement focused as it would prevent random growth on the back of lack of proper infrastructure with a new settlement having the required infrastructure to respond to planned growth needs. This might be preferable for Suffolk as a whole but d could mean that any new settlement will be located outside Mid Suffolk. The Parish Council does not feel that the OAN numbers support a new town/village in the Mid Suffolk Area and its next preference would be for growth to be along the lines of Option MHD2 - market town/rural balance

More details about Rep ID: 6936

Representation ID: 6931

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

BHD3 MHD3 for reasons in the description and as this allows for more people to be less reliant on cars and so applies to the strategic policies of mitigating climate change.

More details about Rep ID: 6931

Representation ID: 6829

COMMENT Gislingham Parish Council (Mr Chris Pitt)

Summary:

We strongly support MHD1 - county town focused. Ipswich has all the facilities needed to enable it to grow and expand with supporting infrastructure and facilities for families, businesses and commerce. Moreover, Ipswich would benefit from being larger - possibly even applying to become a city giving it more "clout" in attracting additional investment possibly from central government or regional development agencies. It would also mean reduced pressure on rural areas (with little to offer younger generations) to accept new homes . Focusing growth in Ipswich and Urban Areas is the more sustainable option.

More details about Rep ID: 6829

Representation ID: 6759

SUPPORT Hill (Lee Melin)

Summary:

Option BHD2 reflects the Distric's current settlement pattern wit a population spread across urban centres and the rural area. The rural area plays a key role with significant numbers living in the Market Towns, Core Villages and smaller settlements. Additional growth in the rural settlements is important to support existing services and/or create the critical mass to provide for their enhancement.

More details about Rep ID: 6759

Representation ID: 6708

COMMENT Yaxley Parish Council (Mr Philip Freeman)

Summary:

Rural/market town mix due to the infrastructure already being in place. Oppose new settlement focus.

More details about Rep ID: 6708

Representation ID: 6607

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

BHD4 because in this option Sproughton attracted a slightly more realistic % of district growth. Careful planning and development allows a village to include the new housing into the community rather than the opposite. As said before this only works if the infrastructure is included as part of the plan nopt as an afterthought.

More details about Rep ID: 6607

Representation ID: 6541

COMMENT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

Option: MHD1 County Town focussed
This option supports sustainable growth opportunities and will also be the best option environmentally as it would lead to more housing in key areas thus reducing carbon emissions and traffic load in surrounding areas.

More details about Rep ID: 6541

Representation ID: 6443

SUPPORT Mr Robin Coates

Summary:

This option has a lower development level for Ipswich fringe, preventing the spread of existing towns resulting in them engulfing the adjacent countryside and overwhelming current infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 6443

Representation ID: 6344

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

While we recognise the need for growth it needs to be proportionate to the size and location of the existing developments.

More details about Rep ID: 6344

Representation ID: 6298

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

No comment

More details about Rep ID: 6298

Representation ID: 6296

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

N/A

More details about Rep ID: 6296

Representation ID: 6281

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

Summary:

Option MHD3 is most appropriate but should be suitably modified as above.

More details about Rep ID: 6281

Representation ID: 6268

SUPPORT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

MHD1 and MHD3 are the only credible policies unless there is dramatic improvement in the provision of public transport and services in rural areas.
MHD3 would provide the most benefit to Mid Suffolk but there must be an improvement in the infrastructure in the settlements most affected.

More details about Rep ID: 6268

Representation ID: 6209

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Planning for development up to 2036 gives opportunity for bold innovative and creative thinking. The options offered appear to promote the continuation of urban sprawl, welding and merging of communities. This is not the answer.
Another option would be to spread the 9% growth forecast across the majority of current settlements in the district. This would not create significant concentrated, adverse impacts on services and infrastructure as these would be more widely spread .

More details about Rep ID: 6209

Representation ID: 6134

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

Support BHD2 because of the higher reliance on delivery from Core Villages where there is a good track record of delivery. More sites and a greater range for small and medium-sized builders would assist delivery. Over reliance on Ipswich fringe will deliver slowly. Delays in planning and implementing new settlements mean that they should not be relied to make a sensible contribution to supply for at least ten years after an allocation is made.

More details about Rep ID: 6134

Representation ID: 5971

SUPPORT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

We support Option MHD1 - development based on Ipswich fringes and Market towns. These are the positions of maximum accessibility, the most sustainable settlements. However such fringe sites need to be properly integrated and infrastructure and service issues need to be fully addressed.

More details about Rep ID: 5971

Representation ID: 5935

COMMENT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

We support option BHD1; logically (and naturally), housing growth should centre in and about the main areas of employment. Such areas may also be expected to have good, existing infrastructure, local transport, shops and leisure facilities.

In the absence of proven, justifiable need, why approve mass housing in rural areas and villages miles from main transport links and main areas of employment when a majority of working people need to travel in order to get to work and home?

More details about Rep ID: 5935

Representation ID: 5850

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes BHD1 and BHD3 both seem more appropriate than the other two alternatives.

More details about Rep ID: 5850

Representation ID: 5845

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

BHD1 and BHD3 both have merits. The most important factor is that significant growth should be restricted to meet transport corridor focus.

More details about Rep ID: 5845

Representation ID: 5835

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

County Town / Transport Focused: The reason for this is the infrastructure that is already in place. The smaller settlement areas currently struggle with Education, Health and transport capacity. There are more facilities and it is more economically viable to develop on an existing infrastructure reliving pressures on the rural areas and market towns that were not designed for the additional growth. Focusing on existing transport connections will reduce carbon footprint through better public transport links.

More details about Rep ID: 5835

Representation ID: 5720

COMMENT Paul Hales Associates (Mr. Paul Hales)

Summary:

BHD2 I consider to be the most appropriate option but the distribution should be weighted more to urban areas and market towns as these are the most sustainable locations and should accommodate the largest proportion of new development.

More details about Rep ID: 5720

Representation ID: 5676

COMMENT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

The responses to q13, 14, and 15 are so illuminating. What is being said?
1. There are really no 'good' options. 2. Nobody can think of a site for a new settlement 3. Nobody wants new development anywhere near them.

Grasp the nettle. Tell government that endless growth and building is not supported by people or is seen as a negative. It is time to rethink and start to plan for population reduction. Come on, be brave, tell them Suffolk wants minimal population growth with minimal increase in pollution and improve quality of life.

More details about Rep ID: 5676

Representation ID: 5619

COMMENT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

BHD4 & MHD4 - New Settlement Focused. The development of new settlements with supporting infrastructure is essential. The more development that is crammed in and around towns like Ipswich, the greater the traffic problems it creates in the towns and surrounding villages. Many towns and villages have reached their full residential capacity. Encourage suitable businesses to move to new settlements surrounded by farms and countryside to create a healthier working / living environment. Provide the road and communication infrastructure that is needed.

More details about Rep ID: 5619

Representation ID: 5512

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

BDH2 and BDH4

More details about Rep ID: 5512

Representation ID: 5451

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council supports option MHD3 or MHD1

More details about Rep ID: 5451

Representation ID: 5358

COMMENT Mr Paul Rogers

Summary:

BHD4 or BHD1 are most appropriate. New developments need appropriate infrastructure which includes the provision of mains gas, fibre optic broadband, appropriate road networks, adequate public transport that supports real needs (access to Ipswich centre and railway station for access to London where the growth of jobs are).

More details about Rep ID: 5358

Representation ID: 5221

COMMENT Mr Terence Gray

Summary:

See BHD4 response

More details about Rep ID: 5221

Representation ID: 5215

COMMENT Mr Stephen Fisher

Summary:

MHD1 County Town focused: This option supports sustainable growth opportunities and will also be the best option environmentally as it would lead to more housing in key areas thus reducing carbon emissions and traffic load in surrounding areas.
Housing in Beyton could be developed to support business in the area. This will attract the appropriate residential property in Beyton, but the area will require improved local area infrastructure, including more practical access to the A14 and other traffic options, e.g. improvement of the Fishwick Corner to Bury Road to facilitate Thurston traffic bypassing Beyton."

More details about Rep ID: 5215

Representation ID: 5152

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

We see BHD1 as the most sustainable option as the County Town offers the greatest array of jobs, services and facilities, providing a good quality of life to a large number of people within a minimum travelling time and distance.

More details about Rep ID: 5152

Representation ID: 5116

COMMENT Mrs Rosemary Jones

Summary:

Preferred option MHD2 - or MHD4

Why has the Ipswich Fringe area been alloted only 20% in MHD3?

More details about Rep ID: 5116

Representation ID: 4974

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

We believe that Option BHD2 best reflects the needs of Babergh. Market Town/Rural Area balance.

More details about Rep ID: 4974

Representation ID: 4891

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

Ipswich focussed development will only be appropriate if it is fully
compatible with Ipswich's own plans.
Market Town focus compatible with the town's own plans will provide better
infrastructure and services over a wider area which will be beneficial to more
people in rural areas.
Core Villages should be important for the benefit of rural areas, but to date
there is no evidence that infrastructure and services including provisions for
education and health will be created, which will be unacceptable for both the
core villages and the surrounding areas.
Transport corridor focussed development is not a favourable or sustainable
approach.

More details about Rep ID: 4891

Representation ID: 4865

COMMENT Mr Iain Maxwell

Summary:

To be realistic, all 4 options should be considered as this gives the greatest flexibility and widens the scope of available land for development. Restricting to one option is not going to solve the 5-year land supply issue.

More details about Rep ID: 4865

Representation ID: 4859

COMMENT Mr Jeff Cribb

Summary:

I am firmly against BHD1 - already the road network in and surrounding Ipswich is frequently congested so it makes no sense to put significant extra pressure on this when other options are available. More importantly the communities around Ipswich are at real risk of losing their identity and being swallowed up by the sprawl of the County town. Precious green space would be lost. I consider spreading the required development around the county, as BHD2 is fairest, allowing all communities to grow, though BHD3 and BHD4 both have merit if suitable land can be identified.

More details about Rep ID: 4859

Representation ID: 4611

COMMENT LAWSHALL PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dorothy Griggs)

Summary:

Lawshall Parish Council prefers Option BHD1 - County Town Focus for the distribution of growth which would see 5% of Babergh's growth going to hinterland villages. Though our Neighbourhood Plan does not identify sites for new housing, the External Examiner was satisfied that opportunities exist in Lawshall that would meet the identified minimum need. The Parish Council, in the light of the uncertainty about how the required housing growth is to be distributed across the District and taking into account the policies in the Neighbourhood Plan, does not consider it appropriate to allocate sites for new housing.

More details about Rep ID: 4611

Representation ID: 4569

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

BHD1

More details about Rep ID: 4569

Representation ID: 4502

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

BHD1 is acceptable for where I live, however it's finding a Turkey that will vote for Christmas!

More details about Rep ID: 4502

Representation ID: 4474

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The idea of a new settlement focused option BHD4 was not acceptable as a new settlement would not have good enough infrastructure or links to employment. BHD3 transport corridor focused option was a good idea as the development would be near to good transport links, infrastructure and jobs. The other good option was BHD1 as this would put less pressure on hinterland villages and development would be focused near to employment and the county town of Ipswich which should be a centre of excellence and focus for the whole county. The Parish Council favours BHD3.

More details about Rep ID: 4474

Representation ID: 4364

COMMENT Mrs Stacey Achour

Summary:

New settlement

More details about Rep ID: 4364

Representation ID: 4323

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

The arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen appears to promote and justify the site availability that has come forward.
The JLP to 2036 gives the Councils opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and the merging, 'swamping' and destruction of existing communities is not the answer.
The creation of well planned, self-sufficient settlements with their own identities must be the primary aim of the Spatial Distribution policy which would also preserve the quality of life within existing communities. The % should be more than 35% for new settlement

More details about Rep ID: 4323

Representation ID: 4259

COMMENT Christina Galvin

Summary:

Either new settlement (if right place, to ensure road network/infrastructure with funding) or balance rural/town (equal incremental growth, not too much in any one area).
Disagree County Town lead with focus on Ipswich Fringe if this category still includes villages outside of town (not necessary if only includes town). Assuming if you live in a village just outside you will work in Ipswich and need a car (no regular town buses) this will only increase congestion on the few, already overcapacity routes into town; Copdock interchange mentioned daily on traffic reports, Sproughton village/rd, Norwich rd etc

More details about Rep ID: 4259

Representation ID: 4185

COMMENT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

Option MHD4
Next preference would be Option MHD1

More details about Rep ID: 4185

Representation ID: 4147

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

MHD4 New settlement focussed; the option most likely to have the requisite infrastructure included.

More details about Rep ID: 4147

Representation ID: 4130

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

Option BHD1 is the most appropriate as it builds on existing infrastructure and sustainable communities. In addition to facilities, impact on surrounding communities should be considered for developments that will impact on existing infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 4130

Representation ID: 4076

SUPPORT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

I suggest to support these aims that the council considers either redevelopment of sites they currently own or back fill as has been done with many privately owned dwellings. More effective use of existing sites should be undertaken which includes the construction of flats and quarter houses.
Underground parking should be seriously considered to reduce traffic issues caused by street parking.
An additional slipway off the A14, westerly direction should be built to prevent Thurston bound traffic travelling through Beyton. Moreover, a road improvement from Thurston should be undertaken to allow vehicles to enter the A14 at Rougham.

More details about Rep ID: 4076

Representation ID: 4022

COMMENT West Suffolk (Mrs Amy Wright)

Summary:

While the Councils would not wish to indicate a preference at this stage, West Suffolk welcomes the opportunity to cooperate on this, as the spatial distribution of housing has the potential to impact upon areas under our jurisdiction. It is necessary to assess the transport impacts and mitigation for growth around Ipswich, and this includes the strategic A14. In addition, if options BHD4 and MHD4 determine growth should be centred on new settlements in the west of the districts, then West Suffolk would wish to explore further opportunities for joint working.

More details about Rep ID: 4022

Representation ID: 4016

COMMENT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote and justify the site availability that has come forward.
* The JLP to 2036 gives the Councils opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and the merging, 'swamping' and destruction of existing communities is not the answer.
* The creation of well planned, self-sufficient settlements with their own identities (and therefore cohesion) must be the primary aim of the Spatial Distribution policy which would also preserve the quality of life within existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 4016

Representation ID: 3919

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

The arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen appears to promote and justify the site availability that has come forward.
The JLP to 2036 gives the Councils opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and the merging, 'swamping' and destruction of existing communities is not the answer.
The creation of well planned, self-sufficient settlements with their own identities must be the primary aim of the Spatial Distribution policy which would also preserve the quality of life within existing communities. The % should be more than 35% for new settlement

More details about Rep ID: 3919

Representation ID: 3913

COMMENT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

Option BHD1 is favoured as Ipswich appears to posses most opportunity for maintaining and growing the local economy and services.

More details about Rep ID: 3913

Representation ID: 3895

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

Summary:

Our preferred option for growth is Option BHD2; the market town and rural area balance option, which seeks to provide between 25% and 35% of housing growth in the urban areas and market towns, including Sudbury.

Option BHD2 focuses future development within the main urban area of Sudbury which acknowledges the importance of such growth in urban areas and will help to achieve the spatial vision set out in the draft local plan.

More details about Rep ID: 3895

Representation ID: 3771

OBJECT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote and justify the site availability that has come forward.
* The JLP to 2036 gives the Councils opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl and the merging, 'swamping' and destruction of existing communities is not the answer.
* The creation of well planned, self-sufficient settlements with their own identities (and therefore cohesion) must be the primary aim of the Spatial Distribution policy which would also preserve the quality of life within existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 3771

Representation ID: 3656

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Best of a bad lot is 'New Settlement' focussed, which will give the opportunity (which must not be missed) to create new settlements away from existing towns on degraded land, with all the infrastructure that sustainable development requires built in from the start e.g. close to N Ipswich bypass when built; copious green space..... This will give existing towns/settlements the opportunity for a 'breathing space' to retrofit the infrastructure they need to heal themselves and develop sustainably e.g. off road transport links, car free travel, initiatives to remove litter/pollution.

More details about Rep ID: 3656

Representation ID: 3612

OBJECT Mrs Rosemary Blackburn

Summary:

With the recent addition of houses on the Paul Double Nursery site, and bearing in mind the lack of facilities within the village, further development as suggested is not appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 3612

Representation ID: 3554

COMMENT Bentley Parish Council (Dr Michael Bamford)

Summary:

according to the relevant hierarchies of development (Ipswich Centred, or Transport corridor (A12) centred) the village might be considered as being suitable for 5 or 10% of the growth in local housing provision in the next 20 years. With the provision of already approved and planned development the Village could be said to be providing up to, or in excess of, likely appropriate housing allocations. SHELAA sites identified would represent an increase of housing numbers of 30%, which would be totally disproportionate. Development in Capel St Mary and Copdock and Washbrook would vastly oversupply the local component required of the Core and Hinterland Group of which Bentley is a part of.

More details about Rep ID: 3554

Representation ID: 3418

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Option BHD4

Simply continuing the urban sprawl, and relying on shoring up already overstretched local services in the hope that they can cope with increased demands lacks imagination. The creation of a new purpose built settlement or settlements, carefully planned with adequate and modern services and infrastructure, allows that community to establish its own unique identity rather than adopting someone else's, adding to diversity of the District's communities. It also adds greater value and attractiveness to those seeking new homes in Babergh. The creation of new settlements may not, of itself, lead to improvement of services, infrastructure, environment, biodiversity, etc. elsewhere in Babergh, but it is less likely to damage it whilst at the same time preserving as much as possible of what is already here and valued for what it is.

More details about Rep ID: 3418

Representation ID: 3387

COMMENT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

Option MHD1 - county town focussed.
Concentrate building in the areas that are already developed and have supporting services and public transport.

More details about Rep ID: 3387

Representation ID: 3330

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Merry

Summary:

None as the infrastucture would not cope, it is struggling now

More details about Rep ID: 3330

Representation ID: 3291

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

Summary:

In accordance with national policy and guidance and the fact that historically most
development has been provided within the rural areas across the two districts, it is
important for the new Local Plan to plan for growth in both the rural and urban
areas. The new Local Plan provides an excellent opportunity for this to be planned
from the outset with a phased approach to new housing over the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 3291

Representation ID: 3059

COMMENT Mrs Ann Reeve

Summary:

MHD2 is the best provided the infrastructure is fully in place to support development

More details about Rep ID: 3059

Representation ID: 3029

COMMENT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

Option BDH2 - This is the best option - due to the poor road infrastructure around Ipswich . All railway line infrastructure to the south of Ipswich is 100% devoted to Main Line services.

More details about Rep ID: 3029

Representation ID: 2935

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

please see answer in option MHD1

More details about Rep ID: 2935

Representation ID: 2910

COMMENT Combs Parish Council (Mr Tony Bamber)

Summary:

The best approach would be to draw from each option, noting in particular

a) the nature of each settlement considered for development, and
b) the practicalities of access 'through the last mile' .

Good access to the general area does not mean that widespread congestion in narrow roads on reaching a village should be considered acceptable.

Some of these villages may be waypoints for access to others and can also become bottlenecks to those with no interest in the village.

Sustainability should surely include minimising passenger miles.

More details about Rep ID: 2910

Representation ID: 2853

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

Summary:

Officers have restricted options to the A12 and A14 trunk road corridors but the question refers to all A roads. Likely to skew responses and lead to misinterpretation of results.

All A routes (including A140, A143, A134) should be included, as should presence of a railway station just beyond the administrative boundary, i.e. at Diss.

More details about Rep ID: 2853

Representation ID: 2734

SUPPORT Mr James Noble

Summary:

I am in support of options MDH4 and BDH4 providing the necessary infrastructure (schools, doctors, roads, transportation etc) is also developed at the same time to prevent further overloading of existing infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 2734

Representation ID: 2592

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council supports Babergh District Council options BHD1, BHD3 and BHD4; and Mid Suffolk District Council MHD3.

More details about Rep ID: 2592

Representation ID: 2582

COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)

Summary:

Option BHD1 is favoured first, followed by BHD4, then BHD2 and lastly BHD3. The reason is that Ipswich holds the greatest opportunity for maintaining and growing the local economy and services and thus housing growth ought be centred around Ipswich as being the most sustainable long term solution.

More details about Rep ID: 2582

Representation ID: 2501

SUPPORT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Lindsey Parish Council understands the need for growth but it feels that growth must mainly be in areas that can be served by essential services and transport links, employment and growth must include lower cost housing so that families can move into the area when they are young.
Lindsey Parish Council supports growth along the lines of the county town (BHD1) model or the transport corridors (BHD3).

More details about Rep ID: 2501

Representation ID: 2486

OBJECT Mr Brian HUNT

Summary:

Developments should be proportionally shared.

More details about Rep ID: 2486

Representation ID: 2465

COMMENT Mrs Carol Ingleson

Summary:

Additional housing should be BDH1 as the large towns have the necessary infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 2465

Representation ID: 2459

COMMENT Monks Eleigh Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

BHD1 is our preferred option. Reason - Ipswich is a centre of employment which if allowed to grow will improve employment prospects/opportunities in villages.

More details about Rep ID: 2459

Representation ID: 2419

COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

BHD1 - county town focussed, as set out previously the issue of density needs to be explored within the county towns in good thought out homes, because these areas have the transport rail links and have growth in jobs. Part of protecting the environment is not encouraging people to commute long distances in cars and as such providing housing in density for areas that are key areas for jobs means that the housing should be focussed more on county town areas.

More details about Rep ID: 2419

Representation ID: 2386

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

All communities need the opportunity to grow, but this should be in proportion to their current size rather than a common percentage across the board for all villages within the same category. There should be a percentage growth cap in the Plan, no to be exceeded unless the community requests it. Tourism value of the area and road capacity (or lack of it) should also be taken into account when assessing the percentage of new build.

More details about Rep ID: 2386

Representation ID: 2385

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

It is the Parish Council's view that a mix of MHD2 and MHD3 would best deliver a reasonable distribution of housing. Building around the larger urban communities is less likely to stress the infrastructure in the same way that a large expansion of a smaller community might. Infrastructure can grow from an already mature status within a larger settlement. To expand in areas further from A roads would be unwise given the increased volume of traffic. To this end MSDC are urged to examine the percentages for core and hinterland villages some distance from any transport corridor compared to Babergh.

More details about Rep ID: 2385

Representation ID: 2384

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

We support option BHD1 - with possible alternative 40% Ipswich fringe and 35% Market Towns.

BHD2 - Disagree - the percentage for Core and Hinterland villages is too high.
BHD3 - Disagree - (as above) also, the B 1456 main road on the Shotley Peninsula would not cope with the increase in traffic such development levels would bring
BHD4 - Disagree - This area is not suitable for new settlement as the infrastructure is too poor.

More details about Rep ID: 2384

Representation ID: 2135

COMMENT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

Option BHD 4, New Settlement Focused. We cannot continue to load housing requirements on existing settlements, with the pressure that puts on local infrastructure. The new settlement percentage should be greater than 35%.

More details about Rep ID: 2135

Representation ID: 2108

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

Summary:

Suffolk is a very rural area, therefore infrastructure, especially transport infrastructure, is very limited.

Woolpit is a Core Village with numerous services and facilities, but also has excellent links to the A14 and we believe future growth should be centred around such areas. We therefore believe that MHD3 would be most appropriate spatial distribution for Mid Suffolk, focussed towards Core Villages with good transport links.

More details about Rep ID: 2108

Representation ID: 1981

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

The transport corridor distribution plan for Mid Suffolk would seem to provide the best options for future sustainability.

More details about Rep ID: 1981

Representation ID: 1909

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Accordingly concern has to be expressed that the lack of clarity and understanding implied for this option may result in a skewed set of responses. Consultees may naturally be including the other A routes in their consideration but their preference will be assumed to apply only to the A12 or A14.
MHD4 New settlement focussed; the option most likely to have the requisite infrastructure included.

More details about Rep ID: 1909

Representation ID: 1806

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

MHD1 is supported (20%) If a higher level is required in
a particular core village that is a matter for negotiation between the local community and developer.

More details about Rep ID: 1806

Representation ID: 1742

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

MHD1 is supported (20%) If a higher level is required in
a particular core village that is a matter for negotiation between the local community and developer.

More details about Rep ID: 1742

Representation ID: 1699

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

MHD1 seems the best

More details about Rep ID: 1699

Representation ID: 1655

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council would support the Transport Corridor focused approach (MHD3).

More details about Rep ID: 1655

Representation ID: 1480

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

Summary:

Option MHD1 will deliver the most housing development in the most sustainable location in Mid Suffolk - the Ipswich Fringe Area - with good connections to the county town. Sites with such connections to Ipswich form the most sustainable locations within the District

More details about Rep ID: 1480

Representation ID: 1439

COMMENT Ms Ann Tarran

Summary:

County town and transport corridor focussed development provides the most sustainable approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1439

Representation ID: 1392

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

MHD2 as it is likely land would become available

More details about Rep ID: 1392

Representation ID: 1263

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I support the principle of a County Town focus and a proposed distribution of development that prioritises the urban areas, market towns and core villages. But in hamlets, like Long Thurlow, I consider that a five percent target is too high. A town/core village focus is a sustainable spatial distribution. Homes and employment can be planned in tandem and infrastructure, facilities and services are most efficiently provided. It reduces the need to travel by private car and enables the most efficient provision of public transport and a network of cyleways and footpaths. This is not the case for hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 1263

Representation ID: 1232

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

BHD3 Transport corridor focussed.
Little appetite for a new settlement and anyway it would nevertheless be based on a transport corridor connection.
BHD3 would require positive intervention on transport corridor planning and improvements which will benefit all communities in the region.
Many of the existing traffic routes and particularly the B1070 are wholly inadequate to support transport growth, particularly when they pass through ancient villages and even towns such as Hadleigh.
There should not be concentration simply around rail stations unless investment is made in local and safe cycle route connections to avoid simply adding to local car traffic pressure.

More details about Rep ID: 1232

Representation ID: 1230

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

BHD3 Transport corridor focussed.
Little appetite for a new settlement and anyway it would be based on a transport corridor connection.
BHD3 would require positive intervention on transport corridor planning and improvements which will benefit all communities in the region.
Many of the existing traffic routes and particularly the B1020 are wholly inadequate to support transport growth, particularly when they pass through ancient villages and even towns such as Hadleigh.
There should not be concentration simply around rail stations unless investment is made in local and safe cycle route connections to avoid simply adding to local car traffic pressure.

More details about Rep ID: 1230

Representation ID: 1137

COMMENT Simon Bell

Summary:

MHD3 - Provided key road and rail infrastructure improvements are planned and implemented first.

Until then, MHD1 as the urban area is best placed to absorb development due to the existing communication network.

MHD4, should a suitable site be identified, needs to be balanced against the need to sustain a large agricultural sector given that food production is a key sector for the area and the District has a high level of quality in its agricultural land.

More details about Rep ID: 1137

Representation ID: 1052

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Great Ashfield is in the Elmswell cluster which rules out MHD1 and 2. MHD3 is not applicable so only MHD4 is left. Concern with all these is that even the limited "countryside" targets may not be achievable.

More details about Rep ID: 1052

Representation ID: 941

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

MHD2 more rural growth

More details about Rep ID: 941

Representation ID: 557

SUPPORT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

MHD2 and MHD3 appear best suited for MSDC in total and Redgrave as a Hinterland village because of the development already planned for Stowmarket and Sudbury.

More details about Rep ID: 557

Representation ID: 533

COMMENT Cllr Clive Chopping

Summary:

MHD1 on the basis that development of existing conurbations which already have good infrastructure and where the biggest employment opportunities exist, would be the most efficient, cost effective and least damaging to the rural environment.

More details about Rep ID: 533

Representation ID: 269

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Any new settlement would need to be on A12/Ipswich fringe.

More details about Rep ID: 269

Representation ID: 177

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Infrastructure could be improved without the need to devlop large areas of valuable arable land

More details about Rep ID: 177

Representation ID: 110

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

BHD3 - transport is a key issue in rural areas and an aging population makes this even more crucial. Access to transport links cuts costs in other areas, namely social care, education and cultural provision.

More details about Rep ID: 110

Representation ID: 76

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

Summary:

MHD2 is the best option since it spreads the development out amongst the surrounding villages. The core villages and hinterland villages will not be able to re-balance their out-of-balance housing stock unless they are given the opportunity to do so.

More details about Rep ID: 76

Representation ID: 34

COMMENT Mr Michael Morley

Summary:

Although resulting in more impact on existing larger communities, Transport corridor offers a more practical strategy in our district

More details about Rep ID: 34

Representation ID: 4

COMMENT Prof George Constantinides

Summary:

My preference would be for BHD1, on the basis that existing urban conurbations are best place to absorb new build with minimal distortion to the existing environment. Moreover, these conurbations require further investment in their general environment, in my view, which would be helped.

My least favoured approach would be BHD4. In my experience, organic growth of existing communities is preferable.

More details about Rep ID: 4

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

Powered by OpusConsult