Home > Planning > Planning Policy

Niobe

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) - SS0558 - Land to the south of Long Thurlow Road,

Representation ID: 10197

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

There are number designated heritage assets dotted through the small hamlet of
Long Thurlow. The site allocations being considered are concentrated to the west end of the settlement. The presence of these heritage assets and their settings
should be considered carefully as part of the site allocation process.

More details about Rep ID: 10197

Representation ID: 9111

OBJECT Mrs E Bond

Summary:

Potential problems with surface water if more land is concreted over.
Loss of trees, hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
Potential impact of adjoining agricultural uses. And noise and smell from the chicken farm.

More details about Rep ID: 9111

Representation ID: 8681

OBJECT Anthony Pickering

Summary:

1) Single development of up to 60 new properties totally out of proportion within an existing settlement of no more than 80 dwellings.
2) More modest development of 10 new properties an extension of ribbon development.
3) Hamlet lacks all community services and facilities; is remote from shops, schools, railway station, doctors. Virtually non-existent bus service and little footway provision.
4) No adequate broadband coverage.
5) Surface water issues around site area.
4) Loss of wildlife corridor.
5) Loss of valuable arable land.
6) Odour problems from chicken farm.
7) Visual impact on setting of listed building.

More details about Rep ID: 8681

Representation ID: 8346

OBJECT Mr Michael Thomas

Summary:

The hamlet of Long Thurlow is unsuitable for this size and type of development, due to its total lack of facilities, such as bus service, village hall, school. This would result in yet more people having to use cars.
This is agricultural land and the size of this development is totally out of keeping with the nature of this hamlet and would have a detrimental effect oh the landscape with the inevitable destruction of trees and hedgerows.

More details about Rep ID: 8346

Representation ID: 8144

OBJECT Mrs Amanda Beckley

Summary:

Location is unsuitable. No local facilities - shops, schools, doctor, buses, etc so would add to the number of vehicles on road. Only one narrow pavement and two streetlights
Development is out of scale with countryside hamlet
Impact on and loss of wildlife, trees and hedges
Irretrievable loss of arable land
Harmful intrusion in the landscape, leading to ribbon development
Very close proximity to frequent noxious smells from the chicken farm

More details about Rep ID: 8144

Representation ID: 8108

OBJECT Mr Neil Fleming

Summary:

Long Thurlow is an "unsustainable location": an isolated ribbon hamlet with poor road connections, no buses, no shops, no school. It has multiple listed buildings and a very high water table. Any development would radically change the hamlet's rural character, damage the landscape, and cause unacceptable stress to connecting roads and adjoining hamlets (Badwell Ash or Great Ashfield) connecting the hamlet to possible places of work for new residents. It is a 10 minute drive from the A14. The water table issue has caused repeated sewerage and drainage issues for the existing houses in recent years.

More details about Rep ID: 8108

Representation ID: 8060

OBJECT sarah brown

Summary:

This is an unsustainable location with no local facilities no shop, bus, school, community space, pub. Living would be car based, which is not recommended.
Proposed development is on a much bigger scale than recommended for hamlets.
There are potential problems with surface water if more land is concreted over.
I'm worried about the sewage system not being able to cope, having had Long Thurlow's raw sewage back up into our garden one Christmas day when a lot of people had visitors. igg.

More details about Rep ID: 8060

Representation ID: 5383

OBJECT Dr Berwyn Clarke

Summary:

Totally out of scope for a hamlet of this size and certainly would cause undue harm to the character of the cluster. This hamlet has no infrastructure or amenities to support any expansion and has rigidly complied with earlier planning applications to be retained within the existing boundary. As indicated in other objections this plan would severely impact on the character of the hamlet, significantly impact wildlife in the area and other nearby grey/brown field sites should be prioritised for new housing.

More details about Rep ID: 5383

Representation ID: 3631

OBJECT Mr Peter Jenkins

Summary:

I object to the element of the Joint Local Plan relating to the proposed development in the hamlet of Long Thurlow on the grounds that the proposal is out of line with the JLP statement on Page 41 that "there is potential to include a policy in the Plan which would support appropriate infill development in 'hamlets' (considered to be a nucleus of at least 10 dwellings fronting the highway) which would not cause undue harm to the character of the cluster and would not consolidate settlements or result in ribbon development. " These proposals do.

More details about Rep ID: 3631

Representation ID: 2383

OBJECT Mr Alan Hall

Summary:

This is arable land that is better suited to farming than development. the small hamlet that is Long Thurlow does not have any infastructure to support housing. Within the same parish of Great Ashfield there are what would be classed as 'grey field areas'. ie the old airfield & some derlict barns & buildings that sit along a road side in this parish.
Long Thurlow no public service transport connection to both Bury St Edmunds & Stowmarket
As & when extra housing required in this area of mid suffolk there are much more suitable sites with better connectivity and services.

More details about Rep ID: 2383

Representation ID: 2184

COMMENT Mr Henry Hurn

Summary:

Site in Great Ashfield parish. This is a curiously and illogically shaped plot part of which is regularly prone to flooding . Single depth housing would be most appropriate to this hamlet which has no amenities and is accessed by country lanes already groaning with agricultural and the increasing residential traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 2184

Representation ID: 1521

OBJECT Mr Michael Beiley

Summary:

Not clear who nominated this land, the process/criteria used to include it, who was involved in approving it's inclusion i.e. Council officers or Planning Committee members and if any potential conflicts of interest were declared / identified - e.g. who owns the land,are they conflicted ?
Development of this land would be disproportionate to the rest of the village.Insufficient infrastructure e.g. no shops,bus service,schools,footpath/pavement leading to the nearest shop,no broadband,no street lights,no local employment,insufficiently wide roadways,no village/community hall.
The need for this scale of development in this location has not been demonstrated in the local plan proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 1521

Representation ID: 1328

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I object to any Local Plan allocation of site SS0558 (Land South of Long Thurlow Road ) , for the following reasons:
1. An unsustainable location, no local facilities and distance to towns. Would be car based.
2. Out of scale in hamlet in the countryside.
3. Precedent.
4.Impact on heritage assets and the character of a historic settlement pattern.
5. Harmful intrusion in the landscape, leading to ribbon development.
6. Impact on setting of Rowan Cottage a Grade II suffolk hall house.
7. Impact on surface water flooding.
8. Loss of wildlife corridor
9. Loss of valuable arable land.

More details about Rep ID: 1328

Representation ID: 1315

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I object to any Local Plan allocation of
site SS 0558, (Land South of Long Thurlow Road), for the following reasons:

1. An unsustainable location, no local facilities and distance to towns. Would be car based.
2. Out of scale in a hamlet in the countryside.
3. Precedent.
4.Impact on heritage assets and the character of a historic settlement pattern.
5. Harmful intrusion in the landscape, leading to ribbon development.
6 Impact on setting of Rowan Cottage a Grade II suffolk hall house.
7.Impact on surface water flooding.
8.Loss of a wildlife corridor.
9.Loss of valuable arable land.

More details about Rep ID: 1315

Representation ID: 1196

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

SS0558 is the only site in Great Ashfield. 60 dwellings would have swamped the locality so a reduction to 10 is welcomed. There are still issues regarding infrastructure and wildlife corridors.
Great Ashfield recommends a settlement boundary that would permit other development areas within the main village i.e. on the major transport and infrastructure route.
In principle some development must be allowed to maintain the village community.

More details about Rep ID: 1196

Representation ID: 649

OBJECT Mr Peter Chappell

Summary:

Long Thurlow is a hamlet that has no facilities to support the residents.


This includes no meaningful public transport, shops / public house or


village hall. To support such large increase in housing as is proposed


would require such facilities to be guaranteed as part of any development.


If any development is proposed this should be limited to no more than an


increase of 5 percent in housing to avoid over development.

More details about Rep ID: 649

Representation ID: 435

OBJECT Mr William Kneale

Summary:

1. This land is NOT in Badwell Ash, it is on the absolute periphery and within Great Ashfield.
2. Taken with proposal on North of same road it is out of scale for this small hamlet which has no facilities and no meaningful public transport.
3. As a matter of record I note that councilor Barker has a very direct interest.
4. Proposed wrap around the back of some of gardens to east and suggested settlement boundary seem anomalous and potentially seals off garden land whilst allowing farmer to benefit from development potential.

More details about Rep ID: 435

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

Powered by OpusConsult