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) - Q15

Representation ID: 13161

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

Summary:

We consider that a new settlement approach would not be best suited for accommodating the necessary housing growth in Babergh and Mid Suffolk during the emerging Local Plan period. We would raise concerns with regards to the deliverability of such large new settlements and the infrastructure required to deliver such sites.

We consider that new settlements are more long term sites that will likely provide greater contributions to housing growth post-emerging Plan Period. As a result, they cannot be relied upon for deliverability during the emerging Local Plan period. We suggest that any new settlement proposals should be made in conjunction with the emerging Local Plan and should run in parallel to its adoption, as a more long term housing growth strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 13161

Representation ID: 13117

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Unclear as to possible locations for the new settlement - would be helpful for the document to provide indication of potential locations as a new settlement might have significant impacts on the other authorities within the Housing Market Area.

More details about Rep ID: 13117

Representation ID: 12748

COMMENT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
o Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.

More details about Rep ID: 12748

Representation ID: 12656

COMMENT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

The proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community in a new location can have minimal local impact but have the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services. Obviously no one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links. Possible locations could include near to Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.

More details about Rep ID: 12656

Representation ID: 12587

COMMENT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link,
* But probably the most practical would be somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway where a new railway station could also be built to serve Ipswich. This is mainly flat farmland and close to railway and A12. I understand that if this was developed by BMSDC Satarter homes, affordable homes, bungalows could be at the top of the agenda and the land could be compulsorily purchased.

More details about Rep ID: 12587

Representation ID: 12473

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

Summary:

We consider that a new settlement approach would not be best suited for accommodating the necessary housing growth in Babergh and Mid Suffolk during the emerging Local Plan period. We would raise concerns with regards to the deliverability of such large new settlements and the infrastructure required to deliver such sites.

We consider that new settlements are more long term sites that will likely provide greater contributions to housing growth post-emerging Plan Period. As a result, they cannot be relied upon for deliverability during the emerging Local Plan period. Suggest any new settlement proposals should be made in conjunction with the emerging Local Plan and should run in parallel to its adoption, as a more long term housing growth strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 12473

Representation ID: 12318

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

Summary:

Consider that a new settlement approach would not be best suited for accommodating the necessary housing growth in Babergh and Mid Suffolk during the emerging Local Plan period. We would raise concerns with regards to the deliverability of such large new settlements and the infrastructure required to deliver such sites. Consider that new settlements are more long term sites that will likely provide greater contributions to housing growth post-emerging Plan Period. As a result, they cannot be relied upon for deliverability during the emerging Local Plan period. We suggest that any new settlement proposals should be made in conjunction with the emerging Local Plan and should run in parallel to its adoption, as a more long term housing growth strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 12318

Representation ID: 12260

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

Summary:

This is a fine-grained rural area with a central focus (Ipswich) and several market towns. A new settlement would not be either appropriate or deliverable - it would have to compete with these few towns
(which would harm their character) and displace the rural character which is worth enhancing.

More details about Rep ID: 12260

Representation ID: 11843

COMMENT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

o It is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services.
o This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
o Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.

More details about Rep ID: 11843

Representation ID: 11764

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

New Settlement
*This question relates to Option 4 (New Settlement Focused) of Spatial Distribution
*It is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services
*This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
*Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.

More details about Rep ID: 11764

Representation ID: 11678

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

No suitable area: Chilton Woods was originally planned as a standalone new "garden town" in past Local Plans. However, with the Illustrative Master plan it is clear that it falls far short of a garden town. Too much development is being allocated already to the Sudbury area and the infrastructure to support such large developments is lacking and not provided for sufficiently in proposed developments. Any new settlement should be in the Ipswich fringe areas but I consider option BHD4 needs a much higher percentage for the Ipswich fringe area.

More details about Rep ID: 11678

Representation ID: 11665

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

Summary:

Whilst we appreciate the Government's support in accommodating a large quantum of growth in new settlements, we do not consider that this is a growth option that should be considered by Babergh Mid Suffolk District Councils. We consider that new settlements are longer terms solutions to providing housing growth and therefore would not be deliverable during this emerging Local Plan period. As a result, they cannot be relied upon for deliverability during the emerging Local Plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 11665

Representation ID: 11634

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

Summary:

We do not believe that new settlements are likely to be the answer to addressing Babergh and Mid Suffolk's overall housing requirement. Contribution to housing supply would be likely to take a considerable period of time. Robust evidence would be needed to demonstrate that it could be delivered. Given that a number of new settlements are being proposed across North Essex we d not consider there to be any serious scope to deliver new settlements in the near future. We consider they are less likely to deliver the volume of homes needed in the required timescales. New settlements likely to hinder supply.

More details about Rep ID: 11634

Representation ID: 11608

COMMENT South Suffolk Constituency Labour Party (Ms Emma Bishton)

Summary:

We suggest that Raydon airfield should be considered as a potential site for a
new settlement. Development there would take advantage of close links with the
business and retail hub of Hadleigh, and help with overcrowding at East
Bergholt, as well as being close to the A12. Any potential adverse impact on
Capel St Mary (in relation to roads and infrastructure) would need to be clearly
understood and mitigated. However a new settlement could also have the
potential to address some of the road and traffic constraints affecting Hadleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 11608

Representation ID: 11544

COMMENT Annette Powell

Summary:

Issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants this in their back yard. Ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to road and rail links. Suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link.

Most practical would be somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/main railway where a new station could be built to serve Ipswich. Mainly flat farmland and close to railway and A12. I understand that if this was developed by BMSDC Satarter homes, affordable homes, bungalows could be at the top of the agenda and the land could be compulsorily purchased.

More details about Rep ID: 11544

Representation ID: 11415

COMMENT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

A "new settlement" per se is unnecessary and probably undeliverable, given experience elsewhere. It takes decades to establish and build up the identity of such a settlement. Better to build upon an existing settlement, perhaps as a satellite of Ipswich - if and only if public transport links were exceptional. It may be possible to consider options in the Claydon area in association with an Ipswich Northern Relief Road or possibly at Copdock/Washbrook if links to Ipswich could be established which do not involve the A12/14 junction.

More details about Rep ID: 11415

Representation ID: 11327

COMMENT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services?
* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links - for example Needham Market or Stowmarket - both on the main line to London Liverpool Street.

More details about Rep ID: 11327

Representation ID: 11221

COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

The option of a new settlement should be properly evaluated and subject to public debate. Again, it is divisive to invite speculation on specific locations at this stage and there needs to be some objective analysis to support debate. But it is logical that such a settlement would need good transport links and access to employment.

More details about Rep ID: 11221

Representation ID: 11173

SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

Within easy access to major transport links and employment.

More details about Rep ID: 11173

Representation ID: 11036

COMMENT chattisham and hintlesham parish council (mrs samantha barber)

Summary:

Why not think big -cover all development in Suffolk by a new town at, for example, Lakenheath ? Obviously that would require some mitigation for other DCs who would otherwise lose funding. What about reclassifying the 130 acre Sugar Beet factory site for residential development ? That would meet almost half of the required housing and it has excellent transport links. Multiple existing brownfield sites with good transport links could be considered without using greenfield locations.

More details about Rep ID: 11036

Representation ID: 10996

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

The Town Council does not believe that a new settlement would be sustainable due to the pressures placed upon the immediate area by the two largest towns, Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich. The expansion of those towns has led to a position whereby Stowmarket competes for the employment opportunities which are vital for the long term viability of the town. A new town settlement in close proximity to Stowmarket would not support either settlement and would not create the sustainability for Stowmarket which is needed.

More details about Rep ID: 10996

Representation ID: 10910

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

No areas identified for a new settlement of at least 500 homes in Babergh District

More details about Rep ID: 10910

Representation ID: 10846

COMMENT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* It is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services.
* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
* Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Rialway.

More details about Rep ID: 10846

Representation ID: 10772

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

In the local Mendlesham area it would require the loss of a significant amount of local high quality agricultural land which would not be acceptable. The existing infrastructure would require significant levels of upgrade to try to accommodate it (not the least of which would be a large investment in new and expanded roads). It would also change completely the local rural environment.
A14 corridor would be more appropriate

More details about Rep ID: 10772

Representation ID: 10632

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

There is nowhere for a new settlement which would not encroach onto the countryside and pollute the environment and cause congestion on the roads, therefore new settlements should not be built.

More details about Rep ID: 10632

Representation ID: 10627

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
* Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link,
* But probably the most practical would be somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway where a new railway station could also be built to serve Ipswich. This is mainly flat farmland and close to railway and A12. I understand that if this was developed by BMSDC Starter homes, affordable homes, bungalows could be at the top of the agenda and the land could be compulsorily purchased.

More details about Rep ID: 10627

Representation ID: 10512

COMMENT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services?
* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links - for example Needham Market or Stowmarket - both on the main line to London Liverpool Street.

More details about Rep ID: 10512

Representation ID: 10418

COMMENT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services?
* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links - for example Needham Market or Stowmarket - both on the main line to London Liverpool Street.

More details about Rep ID: 10418

Representation ID: 10262

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We consider that a new settlement approach would not be best suited for accommodating the necessary housing growth in Babergh and Mid Suffolk during the emerging Local Plan period. We would raise concerns with regards to the deliverability of such large new settlements and the infrastructure required to deliver such sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10262

Representation ID: 10065

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

In principle this idea could be an effective way of delivering the required growth
across the two Districts in a sustainable way, but this is dependent on the soundness
of any future site allocations for a new settlement. Landscape and heritages assets
should be considered from the outset. New settlement policies are expected to make reference to the historic environment. Without this being demonstrated the Plan will be unsound.

Historic Impact Assessments (HIA) should be undertaken to determine the appropriateness of the locations for development. The consultation document suggests that adequate land is available to meet the OAN which does somehow reduce the justification for a new settlement.

More details about Rep ID: 10065

Representation ID: 9989

COMMENT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services?
* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links - for example Needham Market or Stowmarket - both on the main line to London Liverpool Street.

More details about Rep ID: 9989

Representation ID: 9966

COMMENT Julie Brown

Summary:

I agree with this concept of creating a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services.

More details about Rep ID: 9966

Representation ID: 9848

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

Location of new settlement should be on Ipswich fringe so that existing bus services could be extended to serve the settlement; also close to A14 or A12 (or Ipswich Northern Bypass).

More details about Rep ID: 9848

Representation ID: 9704

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Considerable research carried out to ensure that it is placed in a viable area, near to transport facilities and job opportunities. A comparatively large brownfield site, could be a starting point. Careful planning would be needed to ensure that the town had good facilities and transport links. If there was a brownfield site, eg disused airfield, run down industrial area, this could be utilised. A good example is the current large-scale development in the City of York. Ideas could be gleaned from the www.kentonline.org.uk website concerning the Ebbsfleet Garden City.

More details about Rep ID: 9704

Representation ID: 9641

COMMENT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
* Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Rialway.

More details about Rep ID: 9641

Representation ID: 9529

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

The ideal place is just over the border in North Essex where there are already plans linked to infrastructure growth and where employment creation is capable of accommodating such growth.

More details about Rep ID: 9529

Representation ID: 9431

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

If in Mid Suffolk, adjacent to the mainline railway and A14, so somewhere between Stowmarket and Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 9431

Representation ID: 9381

COMMENT Beyton Parish Council (Ms Adele Pope)

Summary:

There are no feasible sites in the area.

More details about Rep ID: 9381

Representation ID: 9365

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally, it should be situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.

Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.

More details about Rep ID: 9365

Representation ID: 9192

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally, it should be situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.

Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.

More details about Rep ID: 9192

Representation ID: 9157

COMMENT Wendy Shorrock

Summary:

Following on from comments above, I support the creation of a new / garden town separate from current settlements, in order to protect the nature of existing communities. This seems to me to be the only reasonable way of meeting the objectives of the Babergh JLP as well as the Duty to Cooperate rule being imposed by the Ipswich plan.

More details about Rep ID: 9157

Representation ID: 9139

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

Summary:

New settlements take 15+ years to Plan before delivery, eg Cambourne. Planning should start now for first delivery beyond 2030. No delivery should be attributed to this Plan period.
Unlike Bar Hill and Cambourne, any new settlement should be located on a railway line with a station. It should be planned for a 40,000 population over 25+ years.
It is NOT a quick fix solution for today even though many Districts (North Herts etc.) are looking at it. Better still are 100,000 population new towns like Stevenage, Letchworth, Harlow etc. but the local social profile needs raising dramatically.

More details about Rep ID: 9139

Representation ID: 9006

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

A new Settlement could be situated on the old Eye Airfield site, direct links to the A140 and access to Diss railway station, it would not encroach on existing green field sites. It is also close to employment opportunities for sustainability.

More details about Rep ID: 9006

Representation ID: 8834

COMMENT Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Andrew Hodgson) represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Andrew Hodgson)

Summary:

We are advocating on behalf of the landowners that a new settlement should be located to the west of the A140 adjacent to the former Mendlesham Airfield.

More details about Rep ID: 8834

Representation ID: 8620

COMMENT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

Option of a new settlement should be explored. Has to be positioned close to good transport/employment links

More details about Rep ID: 8620

Representation ID: 8597

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

Summary:

New settlements take 15+ years to Plan before delivery, eg Cambourne. Planning should start
now for first delivery beyond 2030. No delivery should be attributed to this Plan period.
Unlike Bar Hill and Cambourne, any new settlement should be located on a railway line with a station. It should be planned for a 40,000 population over 25+ years.
It is NOT a quick fix solution for today even though many Districts (North Herts etc.) are looking at it.
Better still are 100,000 population new towns like Stevenage, Letchworth, Harlow etc. but the local social profile needs raising dramatically.

More details about Rep ID: 8597

Representation ID: 8541

COMMENT Mr Michael Beiley

Summary:

On mainline rail link to London / Cambridge to enable a new station to be built and close to A14.

More details about Rep ID: 8541

Representation ID: 8538

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

Any new village should be alongside the railway track with a new rail station as a way of minimising road traffic impact and maximising the use of rail for travel.

More details about Rep ID: 8538

Representation ID: 8482

SUPPORT Woolpit Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

The preferred option is for a new settlement at Mendlesham Airfield. The infrastructure could be constructed to cope with current requirements and there are good road links and employment

More details about Rep ID: 8482

Representation ID: 8275

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The area bounded by the A1120, A140 and A14 would give convenient road and rail access to major local employment centres.

More details about Rep ID: 8275

Representation ID: 8063

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

Summary:

I don't think that a new settlement is necessary or desirable in Mid Suffolk, but a new garden village could be close to the junction of A140 and A143, close to Diss for the railway, and Eye Airfield for industrial development, and could ease the pressure on Stowmarket and Eye to absorb more housing.
With the "Norwich in 90" ambition on the GEML service, being nearer to Diss would be great for opening up commerce and work prospects into and nearer Stowmarket, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford, London etc. Develop the A14 corridor between the A12 and the A11 turn off.

More details about Rep ID: 8063

Representation ID: 8029

COMMENT Mrs Sarah Knibbs

Summary:

Between Ipswich and Colchester.
A well designed community with modern facilities and infrastructure locatedbetween Ipswich and Colchester would create a sustainable environment, that would relieve pressure on Ipswich, and serve the interests of both residents and roadusers. A rail link might encourage London commuters living in the towns to relocate.

North of Ipswich
A well designed community with modern facilities and infrastructure located near the northern bypass would create a sustainable environment, that would relieve pressure on Ipswich, and serve the interests of both residents and roadusers.

More details about Rep ID: 8029

Representation ID: 7790

COMMENT Mr John Foster

Summary:

Not appropriate

More details about Rep ID: 7790

Representation ID: 7767

COMMENT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

Any new settlement must be in a location that will provide good infrastructure. For this reason the Shotley Peninsular would not be feasible as the existing roads would not cope with the additional traffic. Also the local schools and surgeries would not cope with it.

More details about Rep ID: 7767

Representation ID: 7666

OBJECT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

No suitable area: Chilton Woods was originally planned as a standalone new "garden town" in past Local Plans. However, with the Illustrative Master plan it is clear that it falls far short of a garden town. Too much development is being allocated already to the Sudbury area and the infrastructure to support such large developments is lacking and not provided for sufficiently in proposed developments. Any new settlement should be in the Ipswich fringe areas but we consider option BHD4 needs a much higher percentage for the Ipswich fringe area.

More details about Rep ID: 7666

Representation ID: 7561

SUPPORT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

I have already made some suggestions above, bu the most appropriate would be somewhere between Belstead and Bentley and between the A12 and mainline railway.
A new railway station here with plenty of parking would be accessible from the A12 and serve commuters from Ipswich and the surrounding area very well and provide a public transport link directly into Ipswich.
This is a SLA with many small woodland areas so development would have to avoid these but it is fairly flat and development could be integrated into the landscape provided it was kept as a low rise development.

More details about Rep ID: 7561

Representation ID: 7501

COMMENT Dr John Caesar

Summary:

For Mid Suffolk adjacent to A14 and/or A140, and if possible close to a railway station, or site for potential new station.

More details about Rep ID: 7501

Representation ID: 7365

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

* South of the A14, close to the A12 and rail links to London (e.g. Great Blakenham)
* For Mid Suffolk: North of Hadleigh towards Wattisham
* As close as practicable to a major trunk road and rail services
* Preferably on a "brown field" site

More details about Rep ID: 7365

Representation ID: 7227

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

South of the A14 close to Gt Blakenham. Also where BXP plastics had there site, brown field sites are best developed and not left to be eyesores on the landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 7227

Representation ID: 7180

OBJECT Mrs Cindy Hughes

Summary:

It would be irresponsible to consider placing another large settlement in the Sudbury area especially now that Chilton Woods has the go ahead - another 1000 car movements in the area will have a huge effect on already congested Sudbury, Lavenham and Gt Waldingfield. The tiny lanes off the B115 areb being used as cut throughs at peak times and are becoming dangerous.
New housing should be sited Ipswich fringe area, A12/14.

More details about Rep ID: 7180

Representation ID: 7151

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

A Retirement Settlement could be located at Washmere Green on the edge of Lavenham and Great Waldingfield. It is a quiet spot in Great Waldingfield Parish and if designed well could enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 7151

Representation ID: 7114

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

There are no feasible sites for further large-scale development within Great Waldingfield. When Cromwell Fields was approved we were told it would be the last large-scale development in the area.

More details about Rep ID: 7114

Representation ID: 7099

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

A12 or A14 corridor, accessible for business and main employment areas.

More details about Rep ID: 7099

Representation ID: 6943

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Somewhere that could have a train station as public transport is essential for those that do not drive and bus routes can be change to reach a destination but without a train station, trains would not be able to. Trains also run later generally so are useful for supporting surrounding economy and for surrounding economy to support it.

More details about Rep ID: 6943

Representation ID: 6665

COMMENT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

There is no feasible site within the current settlement boundary of Beyton that would not unacceptably increase the housing density or encroach on conservation areas or open spaces that are an important aspect of the village. Any further expansion of the settlement should be in proportion with the size of the village and would need to be outside the existing boundary. The sitting of a new settlement in Mid-Suffolk would depend on it's size. I would favour it being close to the Ipswich or Stowmarket employment areas to reduce journeys.

More details about Rep ID: 6665

Representation ID: 6626

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

Brown field sites not agricultural land.
With good access to existing major roads and railways.

More details about Rep ID: 6626

Representation ID: 6372

OBJECT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

See full representation for comments on Spatial Distribution

More details about Rep ID: 6372

Representation ID: 6370

OBJECT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

We do not support a new development

More details about Rep ID: 6370

Representation ID: 6300

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

BDC has access to the data about employment etc. and is best placed to know where these settlements need to be located. However, the principles would remain the same viz. in the most sustainable locations; transport nodes, access to most climate friendly energy sources, reduction in need for car transport, likelihood of uptake in public transport/cycling, local facilities and services and so on.

More details about Rep ID: 6300

Representation ID: 6218

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Creating well planned, self-sufficient, purpose built settlements with their own identities is difficult and would need significant commitment from land owners, developers and infrastructure and service providers from day one. Any new settlement needs to be close to good transport infrastructure that can be enhanced, if needed in due course.

More details about Rep ID: 6218

Representation ID: 6043

COMMENT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
* Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.

More details about Rep ID: 6043

Representation ID: 5980

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

A new settlement is in principle an attractive way of meeting a significant housing need. It can be well planned, with architectural integrity and social cohesion. It needs to be accessible and preferably in one ownership. Could this be a way forward for the Snoasis site?

More details about Rep ID: 5980

Representation ID: 5976

COMMENT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

To keep overall development costs down and provide truly sustainable developments. any new, large settlement is going to need to be supported by a proportionate and existing infrastructure of connecting main road and rail links, together with adequate shopping facilities with areas of main employment nearby.

Beyond that this question promotes divisive responses in asking for specific sites.

More details about Rep ID: 5976

Representation ID: 5857

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Possibly between Ipswich and Felixstowe

More details about Rep ID: 5857

Representation ID: 5848

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Again first consideration is to meet transport corridor factor together with increased employment opportunities.

More details about Rep ID: 5848

Representation ID: 5838

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

A new Settlement could be situated on the old Eye Airfield site, direct links to the A140 and access to Diss railway station, it would not encroach on existing green field sites. IT IS ALSO CLOSE TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY

More details about Rep ID: 5838

Representation ID: 5722

COMMENT Paul Hales Associates (Mr. Paul Hales)

Summary:

The development of a new settlement is not considered an appropriate option, there is ample scope to expand existing market towns.

More details about Rep ID: 5722

Representation ID: 5517

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Accessible to main road arteries and planners to come up with suggestion.

More details about Rep ID: 5517

Representation ID: 5452

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council wishes to see a new settlement close to a transport corridor but does not wish to comment further without greater consultation on proposed settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 5452

Representation ID: 5315

COMMENT Mrs Ann Hurst

Summary:

Not appropriate until the infrastructure is sorted the copeck interchange and orwell bridge and a14 without a northern bypass can not take the impact of a new settlement

More details about Rep ID: 5315

Representation ID: 5225

COMMENT Mr Terence Gray

Summary:

See response to BHD4

More details about Rep ID: 5225

Representation ID: 5149

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

An appropriate location would be within easy travelling distance of Ipswich but outside the built up area.

More details about Rep ID: 5149

Representation ID: 4894

OBJECT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

It is difficult to contemplate a suitable location in Babergh for a new
settlement that would not be severely detrimental for existing residents and
we do not favour this proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 4894

Representation ID: 4844

COMMENT Mrs Alison Crane

Summary:

I agree with this concept of creating a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services.

More details about Rep ID: 4844

Representation ID: 4604

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

BDC has access to the data about employment etc. and is best placed to know where these settlements need to be located. However, the principles would remain the same viz. in the most sustainable locations; transport nodes, access to most climate friendly energy sources, reduction in need for car transport, likelihood of uptake in public transport/cycling, local facilities and services and so on.

More details about Rep ID: 4604

Representation ID: 4591

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

A short list should be prepared based on a set of criteria by the authorities.

More details about Rep ID: 4591

Representation ID: 4520

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

A set of criteria needs to be established before a location can be properly nominated, Look at North Essex to start with in this regard.

More details about Rep ID: 4520

Representation ID: 4475

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

BHD4 was not considered a good idea. Jobs and infrastructure need to be in place before homes are developed.

More details about Rep ID: 4475

Representation ID: 4293

COMMENT Christina Galvin

Summary:

If the Northern Bypass goes ahead ( which I really hope it does to prevent day long gridlock for the whole area every time the Orwell bridge closes) then I would suggest somewhere on that road, close to the A140 too. Would provide, good road access to Ipswich, Stowmarket and Woodbridge for employment as well as easy access to Suffolk coast for leisure/tourism.
Or, if closer to Bury/Cambridge way, could attract commuters who can't afford Cambridge housing.
Not near the A12 which will be operating overcapacity by 2021, or Copdock interchange mentioned daily on traffic reports.

More details about Rep ID: 4293

Representation ID: 4200

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Close to the A14 -A12 with potential rail links - Great Blakenham area but separate from existing community.

More details about Rep ID: 4200

Representation ID: 4156

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

Somewhere along one of the transport corridors, including the A140 and A143.

More details about Rep ID: 4156

Representation ID: 4135

OBJECT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

We are against new settlements as these would change the nature of the countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 4135

Representation ID: 4014

COMMENT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

* It is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure /services.
* I see this issue as highly contentious and personal. No one would want something like this in their 'back yard'. Any such development should ideally be situated where it least effects existing individuals/communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links, or that these would be provided prior to a development commencing.

More details about Rep ID: 4014

Representation ID: 3921

SUPPORT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Old disused airfields - Raydon could be ideal.

More details about Rep ID: 3921

Representation ID: 3774

COMMENT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

* It is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure /services.
* I see this issue as highly contentious and personal. No one would want something like this in their 'back yard'. Any such development should ideally be situated where it least effects existing individuals/communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links, or that these would be provided prior to a development commencing.

More details about Rep ID: 3774

Representation ID: 3658

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Akenham/Whitton/Westerfield - currently pretty much devoid of publically accessible greenspace and functioning semi natural habitats and could be linked to Ipswich by truly sustainable transport - bus/cycle routes; train (new link connecting Akenham to Ipswich could be built); monorail? A blank canvas for a new market/garden town setting the standard for the UK - well designed with well-built housing and facilities. Golden opportunity to actually deliver sustainable land-use planning and management; integrated provision of water, sanitation, drainage and solid waste management; sustainable energy and transport systems; sustainable construction industry activities.

More details about Rep ID: 3658

Representation ID: 3424

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

* South of the A14, close to the A12 and rail links to London (e.g. Great Blakenham)
* For Mid Suffolk: North of Hadleigh towards Wattisham
* As close as practicable to a major trunk road and rail services
* Preferably on a "brown field" site

More details about Rep ID: 3424

Representation ID: 3421

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Carefully-planned organic growth of existing communities across the District. This approach would provide the necessary additional housing without impacting so heavily on existing communities, preserving rather than destroying their unique identities. It could act as a catalyst to improve and update existing services, infrastructure and facilities for all Babergh's residents, on a scale that would be both acceptable and sustainable. It could accommodate new employment opportunities through small local enterprises, reducing the need for people to travel long distances to work, encouraging cycling and walking and reducing emissions. Such an approach, carefully managed, would enhance all those things which make Babergh a desirable place to live and work. Would provide opportunities for local developers and tradespeople.

More details about Rep ID: 3421

Representation ID: 3389

OBJECT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

Not appropriate for this area as it is mainly agricultural land and English countryside with poor public transport and facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 3389

Representation ID: 3299

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

Summary:

A new settlement focussed approach is not appropriate. Significant
number of settlements across the districts that are capable of accommodating
growth in a sustainable manner that will have social and economic benefits in
supporting existing communities, services and facilities. Focussing new development in a single settlement would have a detrimental impact upon the existing settlements. Emerging Local Plan provides an ideal opportunity for new investment in the rural areas through the provision of new housing on suitable sites, in line with government policy to support the rural economy.

More details about Rep ID: 3299

Representation ID: 3091

COMMENT Mrs June Webb

Summary:

Shouldn't be considered until the infrastructure is in place and money for this paid for by the builders

More details about Rep ID: 3091

Representation ID: 2956

SUPPORT Cllr Diana Kearsley

Summary:

A new settlement should be on the A14 corridor providing ease of access to modes of transport available in the area

More details about Rep ID: 2956

Representation ID: 2941

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

Not appropriate for this area as it is mainly agricultural land with poor infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 2941

Representation ID: 2854

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

Summary:

Somewhere along one of the transport corridors, including the A140 and A143.

More details about Rep ID: 2854

Representation ID: 2598

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council would contend that any new settlements should be planned with regard to transport links and wider infrastructure availability.

More details about Rep ID: 2598

Representation ID: 2461

COMMENT Monks Eleigh Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Prefer small development of additional communities rather than brand new settlement (we understand that this question was asking about our thoughts for a completely new town/village, rather than new development within an existing town/village. We do not think that is a good idea.)

More details about Rep ID: 2461

Representation ID: 2390

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

Consider disused airfield sites adjacent to a market town with established services such as Sudbury.

More details about Rep ID: 2390

Representation ID: 2388

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

Fressingfield Parish Council do not see a new settlement as a solution in Mid Suffolk to the housing issues. Problems in creating infrastructure which keeps pace with development have already been iterated in response to question 13. Examples in other parts of Suffolk (Moreton Hall) and Cambridgeshire (Northstowe) have identified problems specific to new settlements which are less apparent in development of current communities particularly 'new build blues'. The rural nature of Mid Suffolk could not support a new settlement in the Parish Council's opinion.

More details about Rep ID: 2388

Representation ID: 2329

OBJECT Mr Barry Dixon

Summary:

The structure of Mid-Suffolk does not appear to suit the insertion of a large new community. The many small communities currently rely on rural road access to to major conurbations such as Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich for their services and community facilities. In my view, it would be better to expand the periphery of such conurbations, as is currently in progress, to provide the majority of new housing, relying on major developers to provide the community and service infrastructures for the increased population. These developments would have the benefit of train and A14 road links.

More details about Rep ID: 2329

Representation ID: 2136

COMMENT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

We are not qualified to have a view as to where this should be located.

More details about Rep ID: 2136

Representation ID: 1983

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

This would have to be along one of the main transport corridors but should take into account local employment opportunities and the environmental and heritage impacts

More details about Rep ID: 1983

Representation ID: 1912

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Somewhere along one of the transport corridors, including the A140 and A143.

More details about Rep ID: 1912

Representation ID: 1808

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Any 'New' development would need to be situated where adequate infrastructure can be built to support the new development. This perhaps suggests that close to existing transport links and drainage infrastructure would be sensible.

More details about Rep ID: 1808

Representation ID: 1743

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Any 'New' development would need to be situated where adequate infrastructure can be built to support the new development. This perhaps suggests that close to existing transport links and drainage infrastructure would be sensible.

More details about Rep ID: 1743

Representation ID: 1700

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Near to major road junctions and ideally near to train stations too.

More details about Rep ID: 1700

Representation ID: 1502

COMMENT Tostock Parish Council (Ron Perks)

Summary:

Options should realistically be on the A140 or A14 corridor with access to the rail network to facilitate a new station, possibly between Stowmarket and Diss or Stwmarket and Needham Market.

More details about Rep ID: 1502

Representation ID: 1394

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

South of Stowmarket - to avoid increased traffic on minor roads. MHD4 would destroy nature of rural parish of Haughley. MHD3 would make Haughley a commuter or dormitory village

More details about Rep ID: 1394

Representation ID: 1235

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Raydon airfield is a semi brownfield location with good construction potential. A new connector route between Hadleigh and the A12 via Raydon airfield would relieve much of the traffic problems of the hinterland villages and hamlets on the existing B1070 between Holton St Mary and into Hadleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 1235

Representation ID: 1055

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Where services exist and can support the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 1055

Representation ID: 797

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

Summary:

Do not agree that a new settlement is needed, but if there was to be one we would advocate that it be developed near good road rail links to facilitate sustainable transport as presumably this would be a dormitory town.

More details about Rep ID: 797

Representation ID: 775

SUPPORT Mr Kevin Armstrong

Summary:

The old airfield at Raydon would appear to have a lot going for it

More details about Rep ID: 775

Representation ID: 599

COMMENT Mr & Mrs Mockford

Summary:

It is likely that a significant proportion of any new residents will want to commute to work, most likely out of the local area, so any new settlements should be located close to a major roads with ideally good and close access to the rail network.

More details about Rep ID: 599

Representation ID: 179

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

any of the disused wartime airfields

More details about Rep ID: 179

Representation ID: 43

COMMENT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

Hadleigh, Pinewood or Sudbury as these are the only places with services that are accessible to those without access to private transport.

More details about Rep ID: 43

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

Powered by OpusConsult