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) - Q14

Representation ID: 13160

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

Summary:

Propose an approach that combines all options would be most suitable and would be most in accordance in National Planning Policy.

We would consider that a combined approach should be adopted to ensure that incorporating a market and rural area approach which provides a mix of urban and rural development to maintain the overall success of the area, as well as a transport corridor focused approach would be best suited. This would ensure that a sustainable approach to development across the Districts is adopted.

More details about Rep ID: 13160

Representation ID: 13118

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Important to consider the spatial distribution across the Housing Market Area and how the distributions presented by each authority accord or conflict with one another.

More details about Rep ID: 13118

Representation ID: 12753

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

Summary:

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: 12753

Representation ID: 12746

COMMENT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

I would support an option for proportional distribution.
o Propose carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
The expected Babergh population growth of 9% could be applied to each community - Sproughton grow by 50 or so new houses. Low impact on community, encourage small scale employment enterprises, reduce need to travel, provide opportunities for local developers - inward investment/wealth retained locally.
concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, but welcomed by many parents.

More details about Rep ID: 12746

Representation ID: 12655

COMMENT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

I would support an option for proportional distribution and careful planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
Babergh population growth of 9% could be applied to each community - Sproughton to grow by 12 approx. 50 new houses to be built in the area to manage this. This will then have a 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. The concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, it must be for most parents a welcomed opportunity; this matches a district wide 9% proportional distribution.

More details about Rep ID: 12655

Representation ID: 12586

COMMENT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

Support an option for proportional distribution and carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. Expected Babergh population growth of 9% could be applied to each community - Sproughton grow by 50 or so new houses. Low impact on community infrastructure, small scale employment enterprises, reduce the need to travel, enhance and grow the desirable aspects of communities and provide opportunities for local developers - inward investment/wealth retained locally.
The concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, would be welcomed opportunity

More details about Rep ID: 12586

Representation ID: 12471

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

Summary:

We would consider that a combined approach should be adopted to ensure that incorporating a market and rural area approach which provides a mix of urban and rural development to maintain the overall success of the area, as well as a transport corridor focused approach would be best suited. This would ensure that a sustainable approach to development across the Districts is adopted.

In light of this, we would promote the two sites that have been identified through previous submissions relating to land to the north of Gracechurch Street, Debenham and land to the north of Low Road, Debenham.

More details about Rep ID: 12471

Representation ID: 12314

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

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 would consider that a combined approach should be adopted to ensure
that incorporating a market and rural area approach which provides a mix of urban and rural development to maintain the overall success of the area, as well as a transport corridor focused approach would be best suited. This would ensure that a sustainable approach to development across the Districts is adopted.

In light of this, we suggest the site south of Stowmarket Road, Stowupland, would be in accordance with Options 1, 2 and 3, and should therefore be considered for future development as part of the next stage of the Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 12314

Representation ID: 12259

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

Summary:

If the 'more than half in rural areas' (60%?) pattern were to be replicated and the focus on Core Villages respected, then a rough guide would be that of the new Babergh
'residual' of 6,048, some 3,650 homes should be distributed between the 19 Core Villages, so averaging around 200 extra homes for each. If the 10 Core Villages/ Functional Clusters are 'first rank' Core Villages, then the starting point for distribution of growth to those would be an average of 365 homes each. Site choices would be influenced by local factors, e.g. access and landscape impact, but would have this guide as a starting point. This is what a practical, objective approach to
'spatial distribution' looks like, rather than a subjective 'site-by-site' approach.

More details about Rep ID: 12259

Representation ID: 12054

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

Summary:

Most appropriate option would be to not have a spatial distribution policy. Whilst all future development should respect the settlement hierarchy, 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 NPPF objective of significantly boosting supply whilst maintaining flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 12054

Representation ID: 11942

COMMENT Home Builders Federation (HBF) (Mr Mark Behrendt)

Summary:

It is likely that the options in the plan will need to take account of the need to meet some of Ipswich's unmet needs. Whilst meeting some of these needs near Ipswich is a consideration the Council should not restrict itself to such an approach. The housing needs of an HMA can be met anywhere within that HMA.
The Districts might want to consider an approach that draws on aspects of each option. It will be important to ensure that the Councils bring forward a range of sites / locations and not rely heavily on a few large strategic sites.

More details about Rep ID: 11942

Representation ID: 11838

COMMENT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

I would support an option for proportional distribution
o Propose carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
o 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.
o The concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, it must be for most parents a welcomed opportunity; this matches a district wide 9% proportional distribution.

More details about Rep ID: 11838

Representation ID: 11796

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

Summary:

There is a particular need to consider specific sites within the District which require a bespoke approach but which nevertheless relate well to the existing transport provision. Sites such as the vacant poultry processing factory at Haughley Park, which consists of a substantial previously developed site, could be given recognition within the Development Plan to assist in their delivery. In regard to Haughley Park industrial site the benefits would include:

* Significant and substantial gains for the setting of a Grade I listed building and its parkside setting.
* Removal of a non-conforming industrial use which adversely affects its surroundings.
* It would involve the re-use of previously developed land in a location well linked to the A14 corridor.
* It would provide new housing within the A14 corridor with good links to Elmswell Railway Station and supporting the village clusters of Elmswell/Woolpit/Stowmarket.
* Would provide support for local facilities within a very limited travel distance.

More details about Rep ID: 11796

Representation ID: 11763

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Other Distribution Options
*We would support an option for proportional distribution
*Propose carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
*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.
*The concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, it must be for most parents a welcomed opportunity; this matches a district wide 9% proportional distribution

More details about Rep ID: 11763

Representation ID: 11677

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Option BHD3 - transport corridor focused could be considered although I consider the allocation of 25% to the Ipswich fringe area is too low and should be increased to 50% and allocation of 30% to the urban areas and market towns and to core villages is too high and should be decreased. Settlement needs to be around the A12 and A14 routes.

More details about Rep ID: 11677

Representation ID: 11664

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

Summary:

We consider that the Councils should adopt a broad distribution option that reflects a combination of the options set out above.

More details about Rep ID: 11664

Representation ID: 11635

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

Summary:

We believe that a balanced supply of small, medium and large housing developments spread across sustainable sites throughout the two districts is going to be much more likely to deliver the significant increases in housing supply numbers that will need to be achieved. However, there will need to be a particular focus on sites located in the most sustainable locations, which will result in a particular focus upon Stowmarket and Sudbury, as well as the Ipswich fringe area.

More details about Rep ID: 11635

Representation ID: 11543

COMMENT Annette Powell

Summary:

Support an option for proportional distribution. Proposed carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. Population growth of 9% could be applied to each community - Sproughton would grow by 50 or so new homes. Low impact on infrastructure, encourages 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. Concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents is a welcomed opportunity.

More details about Rep ID: 11543

Representation ID: 11326

COMMENT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* I would support an option for proportional distribution with the carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
* The expected Babergh population growth of 8000 by 2036 (9%) should be applied to each community - which would mean Sproughton will grow by 120 (50 or so new houses).
* This would have a 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 - all inward investment with the wealth and jobs retained locally.
* The concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, it must be for most parents a welcomed opportunity; this matches a district wide 9% proportional distribution.

More details about Rep ID: 11326

Representation ID: 11172

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

No.

More details about Rep ID: 11172

Representation ID: 11035

COMMENT chattisham and hintlesham parish council (mrs samantha barber)

Summary:

We consider none of the options put forward are suitable. Other models for rural development need to be explored eg. reclassifying gardens with road access as brownfield sites but limiting development to one dwelling or one pair of semi detached dwellings which are subservient to the existing property - this would allow rural development without losing agricultural land. Or a new settlement taking 100% of the development. Both would negate the imposition of quotas in Hinterland/Hamlet/Countryside ie. Hintlesham and Chattisham.

More details about Rep ID: 11035

Representation ID: 10992

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council does not consider there to be other realistic broad distribution options which should be covered.

More details about Rep ID: 10992

Representation ID: 10909

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

Consideration should be given to improving and creating better travel and transport networks within the spatial development policies

More details about Rep ID: 10909

Representation ID: 10843

COMMENT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* support an option for proportional ditribution
* Propose planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
* expected Babergh population growth of 8000 by 2036 (9%) could be applied to each community - Sproughton grow by 120. Low impact on infrastructure, encourage small scale employment, reduce travel, grow desirable aspects of communities and provide opportunities for local labour to be part of growth - inward investment retained locally.
* concept that in one house out of ten grown up child might want their own home close to parents must be for parents a welcomed opportunity; matches district wide 9% proportional distribution.

More details about Rep ID: 10843

Representation ID: 10771

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 10771

Representation ID: 10688

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

Summary:

It is suggested that due regard is taken of Babergh's character as a rural authority, with many rural settlements. This helps to justify a dispersed housing strategy which gives greater priority to core villages, hinterland villages and hamlets than any of the options put forward under BHD1-4. 60% of housing should be allocated to the rural area communities.

More details about Rep ID: 10688

Representation ID: 10630

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Any housing distribution should be in keeping with the needs of existing communities. large scale development should be ruled out.

More details about Rep ID: 10630

Representation ID: 10626

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* We would support an option for proportional distribution
* Propose carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
* 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.
* The concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, it must be for most parents a welcomed opportunity; this matches a district wide 9% proportional distribution.

More details about Rep ID: 10626

Representation ID: 10624

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* 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: 10624

Representation ID: 10546

COMMENT Alison Barratt

Summary:

Proportionality is key; The JLP proposes a 9% Housing need over 20 years. This equates to one new home in a ten house hamlet, but why stop there. Such growth is potentially desirable naturally matching the growth of any micro community. Generally children grow older and want their own homes within their community, why shouldn't the provision and burden be spread evenly at 9%, by hamlet, village and town.

More details about Rep ID: 10546

Representation ID: 10533

COMMENT Mr john barratt

Summary:

Proportionality is key; The JLP proposes a 9% Housing need over 20 years. This equates to one new home in a ten house hamlet, but why stop there. Such growth is potentially desirable naturally matching the growth of any micro community. Generally children grow older and want their own homes within their community, why shouldn't the provision and burden be spread evenly at 9%, by hamlet, village and town.

More details about Rep ID: 10533

Representation ID: 10513

COMMENT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

I would support an option for proportional distribution with the carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. The expected Babergh population growth of 8000 by 2036 (9%) should be applied to each community - which would mean Sproughton will grow by 50 or so new houses. This would have a 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 - all inward investment with the wealth and jobs retained locally. Concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period.

More details about Rep ID: 10513

Representation ID: 10416

COMMENT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

I would support an option for proportional distribution with the carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. The expected Babergh population growth by 8000 by 2036 (9%) should be applied to each community - which would mean Sproughton will grow by 50 or so new houses. This would have a 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 - all inward investment with the wealth an jobs retained locally. Concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period.

More details about Rep ID: 10416

Representation ID: 10294

COMMENT Keith Barwick

Summary:

I would support an option for proportional distribution with planned organic growth

More details about Rep ID: 10294

Representation ID: 10261

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

we would consider that a combined approach should be adopted to ensure that incorporating a market and rural area approach which provides a mix of urban and rural development to maintain the overall success of the area, as well as a transport corridor focused approach would be best suited. This would ensure that a sustainable approach to development across the Districts is adopted.

More details about Rep ID: 10261

Representation ID: 9987

COMMENT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

I would support an option for proportional distribution with the carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. The expected Babergh population growth of 8000 by 2036 (9%) should be applied to each community - which would mean Sproughton will grow by 50 or so new houses. This would have a 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 - all inward investment with the wealth and jobs retained locally. concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period

More details about Rep ID: 9987

Representation ID: 9964

COMMENT Julie Brown

Summary:

I support an option for proportional distribution and the carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. As young people grow, they should have the opportunity of living in their own community should they wish to do so.

More details about Rep ID: 9964

Representation ID: 9813

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: 9813

Representation ID: 9703

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Yes. There needs to be greater flexibility as to where new developments are to be located, taking into account the region and established settlements. Settlements listed as Settlement Categories are not all similar so percentages for district growth should be explored for each settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 9703

Representation ID: 9640

COMMENT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

* I would support an option for proportional ditribution
* Propose carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
* The expected Babergh population growth 9% should be applied to each community. Sproughton would have 50 or so new homes. Low impact on community infrastructure, encourage small scale developers
* The concept that in one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents over a 20 year period is not just conceivable, it must be for most parents a welcomed iopportunity; this matches a district wide 9% proportional distribution.

More details about Rep ID: 9640

Representation ID: 9526

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Taking into account current ONS statistics for "District" growth and the inability of the council to measure its job creation, the logical approach would be to concentrate growth on urban areas and the towns plus the Ipswich fringe, with rural growth limited to "subsistence" levels as indicated in current made Neighbourhood plans.

More details about Rep ID: 9526

Representation ID: 9430

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 9430

Representation ID: 9364

SUPPORT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

Carefully-planned organic growth of existing communities - By far the best option, despite being ruled out early on as "too simplistic"
Would provide the necessary additional housing without impacting so heavily or disproportionately on existing communities, preserving their unique identities. Could act as a catalyst to improve existing services, infrastructure and facilities, on a scale acceptable and sustainable. Could accommodate new employment opportunities through small local enterprises, reducing the need to travel, encouraging cycling, walking and reducing emissions.
Having more but smaller development projects would also impact positively on local employment, providing opportunities for local developers and associated construction tradespeople.

More details about Rep ID: 9364

Representation ID: 9253

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

Summary:

New settlement option unlikely to be feasible if at a large scale, or sustainable if at a small scale. Transport focussed option (Option 3) appears to offer advantage of more closely linking housing growth to employment growth than Options 1 and 2.

More details about Rep ID: 9253

Representation ID: 9191

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Carefully-planned organic growth of existing communities across the District - By far the best option, despite being ruled out early on as "too simplistic".

Having more but smaller development projects would also impact positively on local employment, providing opportunities for local developers and associated construction tradespeople to bid for contracts to build.

More details about Rep ID: 9191

Representation ID: 9167

COMMENT J D Pickett

Summary:

I believe a more organic growth would be best for existing communities. Smaller housing developments would also encourage the use of local builders rather than the national companies who do not employ many local people.

More details about Rep ID: 9167

Representation ID: 9156

COMMENT Wendy Shorrock

Summary:

The JLP proposes a high proportion of the housing growth to be in Sproughton, because of its close proximity to ipswich. I would prefer a more proportional approach, which would support the development of communities across Babergh, enabling necessary infrastructure and services to develop organically alongside sustainable housing growth, whilst also avoiding the destruction of villages such as Sproughton!

More details about Rep ID: 9156

Representation ID: 9138

COMMENT 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: 9138

Representation ID: 8756

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Yes - based on new small businesses within existing communities, requiring council support/plans to encourage community-based startups, at the same time vitalising these smaller communities

More details about Rep ID: 8756

Representation ID: 8595

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

Summary:

Yes - see Q.13

More details about Rep ID: 8595

Representation ID: 8049

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

Summary:

Difficult to assess other options when there is no indication of how the proportions proposed for each settlement category have been calculated.
There should be more and more weighting towards the large existing towns and market towns, where the core services are perhaps already available, or more specified distribution weighting to truly new standalone communities, rather than bolt on and add on to small villages.

More details about Rep ID: 8049

Representation ID: 7788

COMMENT Mr John Foster

Summary:

More enlightened methods of approaching these issues are provided in other documentation - e.g. BAPTC submission.

More details about Rep ID: 7788

Representation ID: 7665

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Option BHD3 - transport corridor focused could be considered although we consider the allocation of 25% to the Ipswich fringe area is too low and should be increased to 50% and allocation of 30% to the urban areas and market towns and to core villages is too high and should be decreased. Settlement needs to be around the A12 and A14 routes

More details about Rep ID: 7665

Representation ID: 7599

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Other options for consideration include:
- Organic growth of existing communities
- More smaller development projects providing opportunities for local companies and tradespeople

More details about Rep ID: 7599

Representation ID: 7549

SUPPORT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Proportional growth across the district. With an average need for 8.5% growth this represents less than One home in every ten which is quite reasonable and probably what the average community wants as their children grow and want their own homes.
Building on a small scale locally will also support local builders and trades keeping wealth within the community.
An argument for development near main towns is to provide finance for infrastructure but spread evenly that finance would be available in all communities to improve both rural and town infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 7549

Representation ID: 7374

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Other options for consideration include:
- Organic growth of existing communities
- More smaller development projects providing opportunities for local companies and tradespeople.

More details about Rep ID: 7374

Representation ID: 7360

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Yes, Carefully-planned organic growth of existing communities across the District - the 'pro-rata' approach.

More details about Rep ID: 7360

Representation ID: 7219

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

Carefully planned growth of existing communities. To improve and update local services by accommodating new small businesses which would have an impact by reducing travelling times to work.

More details about Rep ID: 7219

Representation ID: 7143

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

I believe, to discourage future car use in a world of electric cars, the distributions should be:

Ipswich 50%
Market Towns 35%
Core, Hinterland and Rural Land 5% each.

In an uncertain world, agricultural land should be protected and improved across Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 7143

Representation ID: 7106

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

To further limit long-distance commuting the percentages should be:
Ipswich 50%, Market Towns 35%, Core Villages 5%, Hinterland Villages 5%, Rural Land 5%

More details about Rep ID: 7106

Representation ID: 6935

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 6935

Representation ID: 6790

COMMENT Dr John Webb

Summary:

Allocating proposed housing on the basis of the present size in house numbers is a fairer way of distributing the housing allocation and would minimise the impact on smaller communities that have been suggested as having the capability of absorbing disproportionate numbers of houses - e.g. Sproughton.

Sproughton's allocation will lead to galloping coalescence.

More details about Rep ID: 6790

Representation ID: 6620

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

Yes....Carefully planned organic growth of existing communities across the whole District which would allow additional housing without disproportionately impacting on existing communities. More and smaller developments would allow local developers the chance to bid for work and would not place all reliance on the big players who have no interest in the local affect. This would also create local work and pride in the achievements.

More details about Rep ID: 6620

Representation ID: 6299

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 6299

Representation ID: 6213

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Yes.
Consideration should be given to carefully planned organic growth of existing communities. This would result in low impact on community infrastructure, encourage small scale employment enterprises, reduce the need to travel, enhance and grow the desirable aspects of communities and provide opportunities for local developers and labour to be part of the growth agenda - inward investment / wealth retained locally.

More details about Rep ID: 6213

Representation ID: 6041

COMMENT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* We would support an option for proportional distribution
* Propose carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities.
Expected levels of growth could be applied to each community (9%) - Sproughton grow by 50 or so 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. Concept of one house out of ten a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents is welcomed.

More details about Rep ID: 6041

Representation ID: 5958

COMMENT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

After BHD1, Option BHD3, A12/A14 Transport Corridor focused housing development would be our second choice; While this may not come with all the local facilities afforded immediately by BHD1, people primarily need to be able to get to work and back within a reasonable time and this provides for the next best option.

More details about Rep ID: 5958

Representation ID: 5853

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Nothing springs to mind.

More details about Rep ID: 5853

Representation ID: 5514

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

No these have already been covered.

More details about Rep ID: 5514

Representation ID: 5223

COMMENT Mr Terence Gray

Summary:

Use grey site first

More details about Rep ID: 5223

Representation ID: 5123

COMMENT Mrs Rosemary Jones

Summary:

There must be other options but I do not know the criteria on which these are based.

More details about Rep ID: 5123

Representation ID: 5119

COMMENT Mrs Rosemary Jones

Summary:

Difficult to find a place well served by road ad railway and not too close to existing towns.
Suggest possibly Mendlesham towards Cotton.

More details about Rep ID: 5119

Representation ID: 4893

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

The BHD2 proposal is probably the most favourable, but the market
town element should be greater at 35-40%, Core Villages 20-25%, Hinterland
Villages 10%.

More details about Rep ID: 4893

Representation ID: 4842

COMMENT Mrs Alison Crane

Summary:

I support an option for proportional distribution and the carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. As young people grow, they should have the opportunity of living in their own community should they wish to do so.

More details about Rep ID: 4842

Representation ID: 4603

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 4603

Representation ID: 4587

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

No. See comments under Housing.

More details about Rep ID: 4587

Representation ID: 4516

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

See above comments under Housing.
Neighbourhood plans either made or in process will have a wealth of 'real' data, Also larger villages in particular will have local housing needs surveys.

More details about Rep ID: 4516

Representation ID: 4280

COMMENT Christina Galvin

Summary:

1)Focus on true URBAN areas, NOT fringe VILLAGES (urban areas expect growth/have more amenities - could use brown field sites rather than countryside, and enable regeneration in areas, growth infringe villages would only increase traffic congestion on already problematic access routes and destroy greenbelt)
2) New settlement (in right place for traffic congestion/employment - can plan and prepare infrastructure with proper funding)
4) then small remainder spread equally over rest of rural areas, %age growth cap, small 'in keeping' developments with proper evaluation (e.g. traffic congestion not just geographical) of access to transport corridors and amenities etc

More details about Rep ID: 4280

Representation ID: 4202

COMMENT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Propose careful planned organic growth of existing communities. Expected Babergh growth is 8000 by 2036 (9%) could be applied to each community. Sproughton to grow by 120 ( that's 50 or so new houses) 75 already applied for planning. NOT OVER 2500!
LOW impact on community infrastructure, encourage small scale employment enterprises, reduce the need to travel, enhance and grow the desirable aspect of the communities and provided opportunities for local developers and labour to be part of the growth agenda. - Inward investment/ wealth retailed locally.

More details about Rep ID: 4202

Representation ID: 4132

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

Yes. Availability of transport and other key facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 4132

Representation ID: 4094

COMMENT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

I would support an option for the proportional distribution of new developments based on the size of the existing community. This could be achieved through allowing carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. Population growth should be applied to each community on a pro-rata basis. This would mean Sproughton would grow by 50 or so new homes. This would have a low impact on the community infrastructure, encourage small scale employment enterprises, reduce travel need. The concept that in one house of ten, a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents is conceivable.

More details about Rep ID: 4094

Representation ID: 3773

COMMENT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

I would support an option for the proportional distribution of new developments based on the size of the existing community. This could be achieved through allowing carefully planned 'organic growth' of existing communities. Population growth should be applied to each community on a pro-rata basis. This would mean Sproughton would grow by 50 or so new homes. This would have a low impact on the community infrastructure, encourage small scale employment enterprises, reduce travel need. The concept that in one house of ten, a grown up child might want their own home in the community close to their parents is conceivable.

More details about Rep ID: 3773

Representation ID: 3657

COMMENT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

An equal spread of development across all settlements in the District, meaning less of a focus on Ipswich and its fringe, with dispersal of development to a number of rural settlements around the District.

More details about Rep ID: 3657

Representation ID: 3616

OBJECT Mr Michael Wright

Summary:

Further consideration is required to spatial distribution in light of the shortcomings of the Settlement Hierarchy review, and that Cockfield, particularly Cross Green, would not be appropriate given the lack of services for growth of any of the options suggested, if it is to be considered a 'Core Village'.

More details about Rep ID: 3616

Representation ID: 2855

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

Summary:

No response.

More details about Rep ID: 2855

Representation ID: 2595

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council believes that there are no other distributions beyond those listed.

More details about Rep ID: 2595

Representation ID: 2460

COMMENT Monks Eleigh Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Public transport, education, mixed housing and council houses.

More details about Rep ID: 2460

Representation ID: 2389

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

Use redundant brownfield sites and protect the AONB. Any sites considered should be close to good road and rail infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 2389

Representation ID: 2387

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

In general terms the Parish Council are satisfied with the four options presented but a blend of these might deliver a more sensitive apportionment of housing across the region.
The Parish Council were concerned with the percentages applied in BHD1 which was county town focussed - presumably Ipswich. As Babergh council is much closer to Ipswich it is hard to understand why some parts of Mid Suffolk which are as far from Ipswich as is geographically possible should be weighted more heavily than the same counterparts in Babergh.

More details about Rep ID: 2387

Representation ID: 1982

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

The County Town option would be the only other sustainable option in my opinion due to infrastructure costs and the environmental issues associated with further rural development

More details about Rep ID: 1982

Representation ID: 1910

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

MHD3 Transport corridor focussed, provided that it includes the A140 and A143 as corridors as per the qualification stated in the response to Q 13.

More details about Rep ID: 1910

Representation ID: 1807

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

No comment on this point

More details about Rep ID: 1807

Representation ID: 1657

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Any other options would be supported by must minimise traffic on B and C classified roads.

More details about Rep ID: 1657

Representation ID: 1484

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

Summary:

The broad distribution should focus upon core villages which provide a range of services which serve to retain and enhance the character of settlement, provide for sustainable developments and avoid the coalescence of other settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 1484

Representation ID: 1393

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 1393

Representation ID: 1233

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

There should also be a recognition of the need to redevelop and improve century old housing stock. District grants and incentives to owners of low grade accommodation which is often in city centre, transport hub locations should be reviewed for opportunities to improve the stock, bring back into use empty and derelict stock and look for infill opportunities to increase density on low density sites in urban areas and market towns.

More details about Rep ID: 1233

Representation ID: 1144

COMMENT Simon Bell

Summary:

The Mid Suffolk Functional Clusters Study (June 2017) states at Appendix 3.2 that "railways do not serve the majority of Parishes well. instead, the railways appear to go around the edge", while also noting that some "other settlements have station, but with .. less frequent services".

The same study showed rush hour journey times averaging around 42 minutes.

Planned improvements in the infrastructure serving the District should generate suitable housing development sites, but without such improvements, any significant development is not sustainable over the period of the Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 1144

Representation ID: 796

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

Summary:

Distribution to be targeted at transport links.

More details about Rep ID: 796

Representation ID: 558

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

The other options ( MDH1 & MHD4) require much larger and therefore costly changes to the infrastructure, communications, etc and would have a much larger impact on Council taxes.

More details about Rep ID: 558

Representation ID: 178

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Better use could be made of redundant government land.

More details about Rep ID: 178

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

Powered by OpusConsult