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) - Q26
COMMENT Paul Reeley
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Perpetua Ratcliffe
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr P. Pollard
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Natalie Brook
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs J. Pollard
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Gavin Brook
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Michael Hills
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Helena Knight
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Roger Knight
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs J. A. Moore
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Miss Jane Anne Moore
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr John Moore
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Dennis John Griggs
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Miss Hockley
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Castle
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Linda Rowntree
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Carl Rowntree
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Miss Patricia Copeman
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Barry Pearce
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Faith Marsden
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Clare Kiely
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Michael Kiely
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Patricia Maisey
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr John Maisey
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Dorothy Scrivener
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr George Scrivener
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Linda Dennison
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Ralph W. Godbold
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Blythe Smith
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Richard Smith
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs G. P. Godbold
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Giles Godbold
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Sally Hoskyns
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr George Major
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Audrey Cremer
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Cindy Hughes
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Anthony Wickenden
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Irene Wickenden
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Jacqueline Cordwell
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr Leslie Graham Walter Cremer
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. D.I.O. Johnson
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs D. Johnson
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Anthony & Tracy Keeble
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. John Fensom
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Alan Cordwell
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Annette Dovell
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Martin Hewett
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Shirley Hewett
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs. Carol Forward
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Grant Lloyd
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrts. Natasha Lloyd
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. John Forward
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Hoskyns
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Miss Isabel De Minvielle Devaux
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Ian East
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Tracy East
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Ilona Northall
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Alex James Richard May
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Richard John May
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Kathryn Anne May
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Olivia Frances Chloe May
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Charles Hogger
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Ms. Jo-Ann Hogger
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr P. L. Ratcliffe
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Miss Tracey Durling
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mrs Carol Griggs
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Mr. Artist
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
OBJECT Building Partnerships Ltd represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)
Summary:
Option RG2 - Allocations with flexibility for small scale infill - is preferable to Option RG1 - A Criteria based approach. However, it appears that both policy options would be inconsistent with Policy Option BHD1. Any criteria based approach which applies to settlements within the Ipswich Fringe would be flawed as allocations will be necessary to provide sufficient certainty and ensure delivery of the scale of growth proposed.
To avoid the potential for rural policy to conflict with housing distribution, land should be allocated in or adjacent to hinterland villages within the Ipswich Fringe. Suitable land is available for allocation at Copdock and Washbrook.
COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)
Summary:
We consider that Option RG2 is the most appropriate approach to rural growth as it provides certainty on the principle and potential scale of larger development. This policy option also provides flexibility to enable proportionate development to come forward.
This option is also in line with the NPPF and will help to provide more robust communities in the countryside. It would also assist with meeting Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council's 5 year housing land supply.
COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (
Summary:
In respect of the approach towards development in hamlets, it is necessary to consider this in the context of growth required in the wider Ipswich area as it may be that new strategic infrastructure supports new approaches to growth to meet the needs of the IHMA, as well as any potential for urban extensions beyond the Borough boundary.
OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen
Summary:
Application of current policies designed to facilitate rural growth is widely discredited across the districts. Planning committee decisions often appear arbitrary, poorly argued and ignore local views. This failure suggests policies are at fault.
COMMENT Tidal Hill Limited represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)
Summary:
Support extension of Ipswich fringe to the south of the A14, or allocate land in this area supportive of development.
we do not consider categorising Wherstead as a Hamlet & Countryside village is
appropriate. We believe the proximity of Wherstead to key transport corridors, the centre of Ipswich and a
range of services and employment destinations makes it a sustainable location development for further
development.
We maintain therefore that in Wherstead allocations or focussed extension of the Babergh/Ipswich Fringe
should be included in the emerging plan which would facilitate the delivery of economic and some residential development which would contribute to meeting the needs of Babergh and Ipswich.
COMMENT East Bergholt Parish Council (Susan Clements)
Summary:
Prefer to allocate sites not criteria-led, because it's let us down in the past
Clearly CS11 is not fit for purpose so RG1 doesn't make any sense unless the likes of CS11 is reworked. Allocations RG2 preferred if in line with our revised and approved EBNP. Any decisions before that would be premature. A perfect example where the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan could work in unison.
OBJECT Building Partnerships Ltd. represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)
Summary:
Any criteria based approach which applies to settlements within the Ipswich Fringe would be flawed as allocations will be necessary to provide sufficient certainty
and ensure delivery of the scale of growth proposed. To avoid the potential for rural policy to conflict with housing distribution, land should be allocated in or adjacent to hinterland villages within the Ipswich Fringe. Suitable land is available for allocation at Copdock and Washbrook.
COMMENT Mr Gary Clark
Summary:
* The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
COMMENT Mr Bryan Fawcett
Summary:
The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
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.
support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. With every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology
OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell
Summary:
* The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
* We would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)
Summary:
We consider that Option RG2 is the most appropriate approach to rural growth as it provides certainty on the principle and potential scale of larger development. This policy option also provides flexibility to enable proportionate development to come forward.
This option is also in line with the NPPF and will help to provide more robust communities in the countryside. It would also assist with meeting Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council's 5 year housing land supply.
COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)
Summary:
We consider that Option RG2 is the most appropriate approach to rural growth as it provides certainty on the principle and potential scale of larger development. This policy option also provides flexibility to enable proportionate development to come forward.
This option is also in line with the NPPF and will help to provide more robust communities in the countryside. It would also assist with meeting Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council's 5 year housing land supply.
COMMENT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)
Summary:
RG2 is supported but greater emphasis should be given to growth at Core Villages to reflect this section of the CD rather than the 'spatial distribution' of earlier section.
COMMENT Marden Homes represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)
Summary:
Whilst RG2 recognises a need to allocate sites in towns and core villages to provide certainty on the principle and potential scale of large development, we suggest that allocations for smaller sites should also be made for the same reason. A number of villages may not be suited for large development and more to the delivery of smaller extensions to the settlement boundary to support the vitality of the area. Without the allocation of such sites, there would be a significant degree of uncertainty towards the potential amount of housing that may be delivered in these areas over the plan period if a criteria based approach for infill development was used within a large proportion of settlements in the District. This would in turn focus pressure back on higher risk and longer term growth of larger settlements. See full representation attached.
COMMENT The Greenwich Hospital represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr Paul Sutton)
Summary:
A policy criteria based approach, as advocated in Option RG1, creates uncertainty and scepticism in local communities, particularly where policies contain a number of different criteria that should be met. While assessing each site on its individual merits would appear to be favourable, it does not always lead to consistency in decision-making and can lead to uncoordinated development taking place. Criteria such as 'locally identified need' is often difficult to demonstrate and there is often a lack of consistency in approach between one site and a competing site. For all these reasons, we believe that in the context of our client's site, a specific housing allocation is a more appropriate and sustainable approach to rural growth.
COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)
Summary:
In order to demonstrate a rolling five year housing land supply, it is considered necessary to allocate sites across the hierarchy of rural settlements. In addition, criteria based policies should be included within the Local Plan to ensure that demonstrably sustainable development proposals can come forward without delay.
Through the Council's proportionate evidence base, policies should seek to establish a clear strategy to enhance the vitality and viability of rural settlements across the settlement hierarchy.
COMMENT The Thornhill Settlement (John Davie-Thornhill) represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Melissa Reynolds)
Summary:
We support Option RG2, however, it should be amended to include housing allocations combined with a review of defined boundaries for Hinterland Villages to provide communities with greater certainty.
OBJECT Heathpatch Limited represented by Wincer Kievenaar Architects Limited, (Mr Craig Western)
Summary:
Over recent years a significant proportion of housing has come forward in rural towns and villages. It follows that developers and market forces define the settlement strategy in the district, and the emerging Local Plan should acknowledge this rather than fight against. With more development sites of fewer dwellings can be facilitated by smaller regional developers utilising the local supply chain, and
reinvesting in local trades and skills. However, with this 'key objective' in mind, the low levels of housing distribution to rural areas, and Core Villages in particular, do not seem to fit. Of the 2 Options, this Response agrees with the expressed preference to allocate
sites to core villages to provide the certainty required in order to deliver its spatial
strategy.
COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)
Summary:
Option RG2, which seeks to allocate sites in towns and core villages to provide
certainty on the principle and potential scale of large development, and review the current defined hinterland village boundaries is supported as it will provide greater
clarity and certainty.
COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)
Summary:
In the first instance, we consider that a wide range of sites should be allocated, as per option RG2. This gives all interested parties - the Councils, the development industry, and communities - the certainty that comes with having specific sites identified to meet the planned housing requirement.
COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)
Summary:
In the first instance, we consider that a wide range of sites should be allocated, as per option RG2. This gives all interested parties - the Councils, the development industry, and communities - the certainty that comes with having specific sites identified to meet the planned housing requirement.
OBJECT Fieldens Ltd represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)
Summary:
It is considered that there is suitable land to accommodate housing growth in close proximity to adjoining villages and towns, including Onehouse and Stowmarket. However, this should not be limited to small scale infill only. In addition, it should not restrict other suitable sites coming forward that are acceptable on their individual merit, for example brownfield sites. A balanced combination of both RG1 and RG2 is therefore recommended.
OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark
Summary:
* The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
I would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey
Summary:
*Sustainable development: at the heart of planning? This is not a recommendation to build but to build wisely. There has to be a realistic prospect that houses are needed and suitable for a given location and it would appear from the surveys done that Rural housing is needed by the expanding local resident population
*It is interesting that small and individual developments which complement the county character have come forward successfully whereas the larger strategic site's drag on. Surely an indication that individual development is for need, and therefore gets done. Whereas national developers build for profit and will hold off until they feel they can get the maximum return with no consideration for need.
COMMENT Haughley Park Consortium represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)
Summary:
It is considered that there is suitable land to accommodate both employment and housing growth adjoining rural settlements in Babergh and Mid Suffolk. Allocations in towns and core villages are encouraged. However development elsewhere should not be limited to small scale infill only, as suggested in option RG2. In addition, it should not restrict other suitable sites coming forward that are acceptable on their individual merit. A balanced combination of both RG1 and RG2 is therefore encouraged.
COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)
Summary:
Option RG2, which seeks to allocate sites in towns and core villages to provide certainty on the principle and potential scale of large development, and review the current defined hinterland village boundaries is supported as it will provide greater clarity and certainty.
COMMENT Mr & Mrs N Britnell represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)
Summary:
A policy approach which seeks to allocate sites and review the boundaries to villages
would be more appropriate and provide greater certainty and clarity. Option RG2 is
therefore generally supported subject to criteria being established to guide the
consideration of proposals which come forward on identified sites, particularly those which are in sensitive locations such as areas of high landscape value or close to
designated heritage assets (including conservation areas). This approach, linked with the pursuit of Options BHD1 or BDH2 (or a hybrid of the two which seeks to assign 20% of the development to the Core Villages) would achieve an appropriate approach to rural growth.
COMMENT Heathpatch Limited represented by Wincer Kievenaar Architects Limited, (Mr Craig Western)
Summary:
Developers and market forces define the settlement strategy in the district, and the emerging Local Plan should acknowledge rather than fight against. Furthermore, this approach, with more development sites of fewer dwellings can be facilitated by smaller regional developers utilising the local supply chain, and reinvesting in local trades and skills.
However, with this 'key objective' in mind, the low levels of housing distribution to rural areas, and Core Villages in particular, do not seem to fit.
Of the 2 Options, this Response agrees with the expressed preference to allocate
sites to core villages to provide the certainty required in order to deliver its spatial
strategy.
COMMENT Annette Powell
Summary:
* The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
Support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
COMMENT Mr S. E. Gray represented by Savills UK Ltd (Ms Lynette Swinburne)
Summary:
We are supportive of the Councils' initial preference towards RG2, subject to further information being published about the detail of this policy. Allocations can provide certainty in terms of housing delivery, however, the opportunities afforded by windfall development throughout the Plan period on suitable sites adjacent to existing settlements must not be overlooked.
Encouraging growth in sustainable settlements within rural areas is considered to be in accordance with The Framework, and was specifically referenced as a means of increasing housing supply within the Housing White Paper (February 2017) (particularly paragraph 1.30)
COMMENT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )
Summary:
GCPC does not support option HG2 and is in favour of HG1.
OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)
Summary:
SOS prefers the certainty of established settlement boundaries, especially in an area with nationally designated landscape. We strongly object to any policy approach which appears to invite the intensification of development in rural areas nationally designated for their scenic beauty. Therefore we oppose RG1 and consider that RG2 is a good starting point, but is too vague for the hamlets in much of the area with which SOS is concerned. Why, for example, should any further development be encouraged in the tiny hamlet of Erwarton?
OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)
Summary:
* I would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)
Summary:
While not the whole answer, we believe that an allocations based approach is likely to deliver a better outcome for most communities, giving them the opportunity to challenge draft site allocations, and put forward new ones, as part of the local plan process, including examination of the draft plan by a planning inspector.
COMMENT Mr Nigel Roberts
Summary:
Clearly CS11 is not fit for purpose so RG1 doesn't make any sense unless the likes of CS11 is reworked. Making allocations RG2 is preferred and for East Berghholt, these should be in line with the revised and approved East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan. Any decisions before that would be premature. A perfect opportunity for the District and Parish Councils to work together.
COMMENT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)
Summary:
The Council supports Option RG2 to allocate sites in towns and core villages which would provide greater certainty for development. The Council recognises the inevitable need for proportionate development in hinterland villages to sustain rural communities, but any such development should be limited to proportionate, infill development based on clusters of 10 or more closely-located dwellings fronting a main highway. Any such developments should not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the cluster, minimise any impact upon the rural heritage of Suffolk villages and should not consolidate settlements or result in ribbon development.
OBJECT chattisham and hintlesham parish council (mrs samantha barber)
Summary:
The additional classification of hamlets seems arbitrary and unnecessary and would result in further development on greenfield sites.
COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)
Summary:
Stowmarket Town Council believes that option RG2 is most appropriate for rural growth.
COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)
Summary:
Option RG2 is supported
OBJECT Mrs Carol Marshall
Summary:
I would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )
Summary:
RG1/HG2 support
COMMENT Brent Eleigh Parish Council (Mr William Grosvenor)
Summary:
In terms of rural growth, councillors favour Option RG2, as providing greater clarity and certainty in terms of proportionate development in hinterland villages
COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell
Summary:
* Sustainable development: at the heart of planning? This is not a recommendation to build but to build wisely. There has to be a realistic prospect that houses are needed and suitable for a given location and it would appear from the surveys done that Rural housing is needed by the expanding local resident population
COMMENT Thorcross Builders Limited (A. Goodwin) represented by Springfields Planning and Development Limited (Mr Chris Loon)
Summary:
Policy CS11 has had difficulties in implementation and does not provide certainty for either developers or the LPA.
Option RG2, via identified housing allocations, will largely address this matter.
COMMENT Hopkins Homes Ltd represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)
Summary:
We support the initial preference, Option RG2, relating to a combination of allocations and a permissive criteria-led approach seeking to support smaller infill development.
COMMENT Mr Joe Lavington
Summary:
* The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
* I would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
COMMENT Wendy Lavington
Summary:
* The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
* I would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)
Summary:
We consider that Option RG2 is the most appropriate approach to rural growth as it provides certainty on the principle and potential scale of larger development. This policy option also provides flexibility to enable proportionate development to come forward.
This option is also in line with the NPPF and will help to provide more robust communities in the countryside. It would also assist with meeting Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council's 5 year housing land supply
OBJECT Historic England (Katie Parsons)
Summary:
It would seem that option RG1 would continue to provide the best approach with
regards to the historic environment as well as in terms of managing the expectations
of prospective applicants. Proceeding on an allocation basis to provide certainty on
the principle of and potential scale of large development in towns and core villages
and using a settlement boundary review in smaller villages may not be realistic to
implement in practice. Likely that this approach would raise the expectations of applicants to gain approval without due consideration of historic environment issues. A policy based approach which assesses each case on individual merits will allow the specific characteristics of each site to be taken into consideration. I am not convinced that option RPG2 will provide the
certainty that the Council is seeking.
OBJECT Charlotte Lavington
Summary:
* The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
* I would support a limit on development at a level that does not dramatically change any community. with every effort made to preserve the best of the local landscape, views and ecology.
COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson
Summary:
The important issue is the proportion and density of the development allowed in any area whether Core or Hinterland village so that the distinctive character of that area is not only retained but enhanced. The Government has already put in place strong guidelines regarding sustainable development and these must be clearly followed in the Local Plan (PPS1.5, 1.36, PPS3 46) In order for RG2 to fit in with these Planning Statements, there must be reference made to maintaining and enhancing the local character of the area especially in terms of ensuring that the spaces between settlements are retained and the density of the housing allowed is in keeping with the existing dwellings, thereby keeping a clear delineation between our urban, village and rural areas.
COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines set out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as these leave too much room for interpretation.
COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)
Summary:
Option RG2 is acceptable so long as communities are properly involved in site allocations. This consultation only includes SHEALA sites, and it is unreasonable to propose sites for allocation without involving the core villages and enabling local representations to be taken into account before drawing up the final draft of the plan.
COMMENT Earl Stonham Parish Council (Mrs Jennie Blackburn)
Summary:
The Parish Council supports Option RG2, not RG1, as the former gives greater certainty. However, the effect on Earl Stonham, as a Hinterland Village, will depend on any review of the boundary and the development criteria adopted (Also see comments immediately below).
COMMENT Miss R P Baillon
Summary:
RG1 as this should mean that each case in judged individually.
OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall
Summary:
The present policies are too restrictive on small and individual development, in that what appears to be perfectly acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders which complement their character without oppressive change have been blocked by planning policies when large estate developments that are oppressive, change the character and destroy the individuality of local communities have been supported.
Proportionality is key;
COMMENT Cllr John Hinton
Summary:
CS11 provides an adequate basis for rural growth that meets the desires of the local community. Where the Localism Act has empowered communities through Neighbourhood Plans it is perverse to use the NPPF and wider numbers to neutralise both the Neighbourhood Plans (community based) and CS11 so the former should be made mandatory. If communities are to be "sustainable" they need to reflect the aspirations of their residents and not be subject to financial or political manipulation of the planning process.
COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager
Summary:
Sustainable development: at the heart of planning? This is not a recommendation to build but to build wisely. There has to be a realistic prospect that houses are needed and suitable for a given location and it would appear from the surveys done that Rural housing is needed by the expanding local resident population.
COMMENT J W Baldwin Farms represented by Pegasus Group (Mr Robert Barber)
Summary:
My client strongly supports Option RG2.
Site allocations should be made at sustainable rural settlements.
SUPPORT W H Jardine represented by Phase 2 Planning & Development Ltd (Mr Kevin Coleman)
Summary:
We support the approach of allocating sites for development at the towns and core villages, both for the reasons given in the consultation document, and because this approach provides greater certainty in terms of the ability of the Councils to meet their development requirements, and because it enables the Councils to proactively seek to bring forward the most appropriate sites for development.
Whilst an element of flexibility for small scale development in the hinterland villages is appropriate, the strategy should be looking to allocate land for the vast majority of development needs.
COMMENT The Gooderham Family and ESCO Developments Ltd represented by Cheffins Planning & Development (Mr Jon Jennings)
Summary:
Option RG1 is supported as it will allow development to come forward in appropriate locations and ensure that market demand is met. There are concerns that the proposed allocations associated with Option RG2 will not provide development in the right type of homes in the right places. There is a persistent record of the non-delivery of allocated sites and a criterion based approach is more likely to deliver appropriate levels of development.
COMMENT Mr Bay Knowles represented by Keymer Cavendish Limited (Mr Edward Keymer)
Summary:
Some growth in hamlets should be allowed
COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)
Summary:
Option RG1 the alternative results in hinterland villages being unfairly diminished with no recompense.
COMMENT Simon Bell
Summary:
Policy Proposal RG1/HG1 ensures that inappropriate development in rural and hamlet areas in prevented through the use of criteria based assessment on a case by case basis.
COMMENT Andrew Searle
Summary:
Rural growth has to complement the area it is going into, not dominate or disturb, so only smaller developments.
COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield
Summary:
RG2 with checks and balances (such as SHELAA assessments that in many cases consider a site suitable, but for only part-development to complement rather than dominate existing surroundings). RG1 sounds bureaucratic, unworkable for the scale of development needed, and full of uncertainty for all involved
COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)
Summary:
New development and housing should be distributed across the district including small villages and hamlets.
It should not just be infill within the settlement boundary but should be allowed outside the settlement boundary on a case by case basis where it is supported by the local community.
SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)
Summary:
RG2 is the preferred option
COMMENT Mr David Pettitt represented by Keymer Cavendish Limited (Philippa Hull)
Summary:
Some growth in hamlets should be allowed
COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)
Summary:
The Council supports Option RG2.
The Parish Council wishes to be consulted on any proposal to alter Acton's settlement boundary.
COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)
Summary:
Flexibility is important. Growth is important in order to support community based employment, changing needs and vitality and viability of communities.
There needs to be a pragmatic approach to allocating small development sites. The forecast homes growth in Babergh is 9% equivalent to permitting one to two houses in a hamlet or small village including ribbon development. Propagate this across the whole district and you have required growth combined with more sympathetic, organic growth of communities.
COMMENT Mr C Partridge
Summary:
I think that both RG1 and RG2 together would make a sensible policy. Development should always be considered individually so that the development is appropriate to the setting.
COMMENT Ms Helen Davies
Summary:
Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if Babergh supports rural development at a proportionate level.
COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)
Summary:
Option RG1 appears to have significant deficiencies in practice, and therefore I support the more flexible approach proposed in Option RG2.
COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)
Summary:
RG2
We would support infill development but not ribbon development which would erode the current nature of Tattingstone being 3 distinct areas surrounded by open countryside
COMMENT Mr Iain Maxwell
Summary:
Certainty is important so communities area made aware of what numbers of housing they might expect.
The criteria for defining Core Villages needs to be reviewed and basing this just on a snapshot of facilities does not give the full picture of a settlement. Why change from the hierarchy in the current (2012) Local Plan? This seems to be a more logical approach.
COMMENT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)
Summary:
We prefer option RG2
OBJECT Mr John Foster
Summary:
The options set out in this section are poorly conceived. By using a community based approach based on defined local needs greater flexibility can be achieved without endangering the essential character of rural areas. The '10 property' classification is unhelpful and may lead to the stagnation of community life. An alternative approach is outlined in the BAPTC submission.
COMMENT Mr Peter Powell
Summary:
* Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if you support rural development at a proportionate level.
COMMENT Mx Miles Row
Summary:
RG1 because it would give a point to assess if it is sustainable growth or if it is going to lead to issues and affect other strategic policies.
COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton
Summary:
Whichever option is chosen there must be clear guidelines laid out similar to the Joint Landscape Plan and CS11 that protect rural sites from over-development. Loose wording ("without undue harm") must be avoided as this leaves room for mis-interpretation
COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton
Summary:
Development in Rural Areas should be for Farm Workers, Home Office Workers or Retirement only.
COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)
Summary:
The Council supports Policy HG2 - appropriate in fill development in hamlets (nucleus of at least 10 dwellings provided that the following criteria is satisfied:
Existing development is adjacent to or fronting an existing highway;
The scale of development consists of infilling by one detached dwelling or 2 semi-detached properties within a continuous built up frontage along the highway;
Not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the cluster or any harmful visual intrusion into the surrounding landscape;
and the cumulative impact of proposals is to be a major consideration.
COMMENT ms sally sparrow
Summary:
Possibly RG2, however it could go further if it supported rural development at a proportionate
COMMENT Mr Alan Lewis
Summary:
This is still rather unclear to me, but on balance the idea of having pre-agreed criteria (RG2) would seem more appropriate in allowing debate before the policy was formalised, and more certainty about what the policy should be than RG1.
SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)
Summary:
Support RG2 but with limits on size of development
COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)
Summary:
HG1 - continuation of the current approach which would classify hamlets as open countryside in the settlement hierarchy.
SUPPORT Mr Simon Williams
Summary:
Support RG2 but with the proviso that "proportionate" is actually applied.
COMMENT Mr Colin Johnston
Summary:
RG1 and HG1 seem sensible. The NPPF is a document by urbanites for urbanites. It does not translate for a rural audience. This is the problem: the main document dominating planning policy is unfit for purpose; it is not made for rural England and can only be applied, riven with contradictions, to rural areas.
COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)
Summary:
Support RG2 which reflects the successful rates of delivery of 60% of housing delivered in recent years in the rural area. The market indicates development at Core Villages will be faster than on Ipswich Fringe or other strategic locations, particularly if early allocations provide certainty.
COMMENT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)
Summary:
Based on the existing wording of CS11 within the Core Strategy then RG1, absolutely.
Babergh Planning Policy presently includes a requirement to prove "exceptional and justifiable need" as a prerequisite for approval of development outside of existing settlement boundaries (and so in countryside) as Babergh learnt to their cost recently in the High Court.
However, if the intention is to re-write CS11 (or its associated clauses) to water-down this protection then we would have to say RG2 as this at least provides certainty on the scale and placement of intended housing development.
COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)
Summary:
LWPC believes option RG2 is most appropriate.
COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere
Summary:
Option RG1 the alternative results in hinterland villages being unfairly diminished with no recompense.
COMMENT Mr Adrian James
Summary:
For hinterland villages and hamlets there should certainly not be any development or infill. This affects the character of the area and can be a charter for developers and landowners looking to make a fast buck at the expense of the local community.
Of course people need to be able to move into areas and the current turnover of housing occupation allows this - evidenced by the constant supply of variety of houses for sale in many areas.
COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)
Summary:
RG2 is our preferred choice not HG2 as previously submitted.
COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)
Summary:
Denham Parish Council supports option RG2
COMMENT Mr Paul Rogers
Summary:
HG1 - continuation of the current approach which would classify hamlets as open countryside in the settlement hierarchy.
It is nonsensical to use approach HG2:
- Infills by their very nature are larger, less-affordable properties as they are developed to be in-keeping with the properties they are built between (no affordable housing has sufficient land for infills).
- Infills put strain on existing services which were originally provisioned for the pre-infill number of properties. New development sites are more appropriate here where services can be designed appropriately.
COMMENT Mr Stephen Fisher
Summary:
The descriptions of the criteria-based approaches for RG1 and RG2 rather unclear, but on balance the idea of having pre-agreed criteria (RG2) would seem more appropriate in allowing debate before the policy was formalised, and more certainty about what the policy should be than RG1. From a Beyton point of view having input into what these criteria should be would be very important.
SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)
Summary:
RG2 is preferred. The Parish Council is proposing to allocate sites for housing development, planning to obviate the need for windfall development.
COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)
Summary:
We support RG2 for its flexibility, but it must be not be used for a 'free for all'.
COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)
Summary:
We prefer option RG2.
COMMENT Dr Tanna represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)
Summary:
RG2 - Allocations with flexibility for small scale infill is the more appropriate approach to rural growth, and the approach should be amended to enable suitable sites to be allocated in all of the settlement types within the hierarchy.
COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)
Summary:
HG1 - continuation of the current approach which would classify hamlets as open countryside in the settlement hierarchy. This is very relevant to Woolverstone
COMMENT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)
Summary:
RG2 - there should be flexibility if a need for development is proven
COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)
Summary:
The Parish Council would support rural growth option RG1 - a policy criteria based approach.
SUPPORT Mr Jeremy Doncaster
Summary:
I support RG1 developments should be limited to small developments.
COMMENT Mrs Jackie Ward
Summary:
Option RG2 is acceptable so long as communities are properly involved in site allocations. This consultation only includes SHEALA sites, and it is unreasonable to propose sites for allocation without involving the core villages and enabling local representations to be taken into account before drawing up the final draft of the plan.
COMMENT Mr John Bellwood
Summary:
* Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if you support rural development at a proportionate level.
COMMENT Mr Richard Fletcher
Summary:
Option RG2 is supported - it may allow all communities, particularly in rural areas, to accommodate new development without destroying their character
SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister
Summary:
Support RGH2.
Accommodating new development/growth in rural areas in/around core/hinterland villages and hamlets makes sense. Many of these communities have an aged population and high house prices. They will decline without new development and revitalisation of the economy. Many do not sit well visually in the surrounding landscape and a 'reimagining' of their boundary and setting would be hugely beneficial. Some are surrounded by boring, degraded landscape and creation of new greenspace, habitats and landscape features would be transformational. A reconnection to the landscape and neighbouring communities would be welcome.
OBJECT The Executors of DH Mager represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)
Summary:
As it is currently worded, RG2, is restrictive in that it suggests that only sites in the towns and core villages should be allocated, with a criterion based approach to the hinterland villages and infill development in hamlets and clusters of 10 or more dwellings. There are a number of hinterlands villages, including Hoxne, which comprise sustainable locations for future housing development where it is appropriate to specifically allocate site(s) to provide greater certainty to housing being delivered on suitable sites.
COMMENT Mr John Kitson
Summary:
Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if you support rural development at a proportionate level.
COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)
Summary:
It is with dismay that the Parish Council learned that the existing Local Plan which recommended the proportion of urban/rural ratio for housing growth be 70/30 (page 28) has in fact materialised as 40/60 (page 41). This is a policy that needs positive discrimination towards urban areas in the proposed Local Plan as this pattern cannot be seen as beneficial to jobs, transport, healthcare education and sustainability. As such the Parish Council would consider RG2 as the favoured option for rural growth although request clarification over the phrase 'proportionate development' in the narrative.
COMMENT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)
Summary:
Lindsey Parish Council's preferred option is for HG2 which should allow appropriate development in hamlets irrespective of defined settlement boundaries
OBJECT Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs)
Summary:
It is unclear what is meant by proportionate development, especially regarding windfall sites, the location and size of which are unpredictable. Some communities with few amenities but a large number of windfall sites could experience more development that communities with amenities but few windfall sites. Proportionality should include weighting for existing amenities and infrastructure. It is unclear how settlement boundaries will be reviewed in the absence of allocated sites. We need clarity on the criteria based approach.
SUPPORT Iain Pocock
Summary:
Needs to be carefully controlled and small scale aimed at local needs
COMMENT Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson)
Summary:
The DDNP will have to take into consideration the local housing requirement and mixes of type and tenure as appropriate not only to the DDNP Area but to the individual settlements within it.
Option RG2 appears to offer more certainty for existing settlements to retain their identity and sense of place.
OBJECT Braiseworth Hall Farms Limited represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)
Summary:
Allocations with flexibility for small scale infill is the more appropriate approach to rural growth, however the approach should be amended to enable suitable sites to be allocated in all of the settlement types within the hierarchy. As it is currently worded, RG2, is restrictive in that it suggests that only sites in the towns and core villages should be allocated, with a criterion based approach to the hinterland villages and infill development in hamlets and clusters of 10 or more dwellings.
OBJECT Mr M Ribbons represented by Evolution Town Planning (Mr David Barker)
Summary:
Suitable sites should be able to be allocated in all settlement types within the hierarchy.
COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)
Summary:
Cockfield Parish Council supports proposal RG2; however, only following a re-appraisal of the settlement hierarchy.
COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)
Summary:
Consider that Option RG2 - is the most suitable as it ensures all communities particularly in rural areas so as to provide and sustain their communities
COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)
Summary:
RG1 is most appropriate. Option RG2 would permit too flexible approach and therefore uncertainty to "infil" developments within Hamlets.
SUPPORT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)
Summary:
Option RG2 would provide far greater certainty than CS11 which is unfit for purpose.
COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)
Summary:
Support for option RG2
COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)
Summary:
Hoxne Parish Council supports the Options in RG2
COMMENT Ms Ann Tarran
Summary:
Option HG 2 with tighter criteria for Conservation Areas
COMMENT Mrs Diana Chapman
Summary:
I support RG1 and strongly support HG1. I agree that there needs to be some flexibility but on a criteria based policy approch. In the hamlet category, in particular, there is a real problem in defining an appropriate settlement boundary. The fact that earlier "village envelopes" were abandoned in Mid Suffolk suggests that it wasn't working as a policy approach. Removing a defined boundary has still enabled limited infill.
I reject HG2 and support HG1 as a continuation of the current approach to hamlets in the countryside ie. on a par with open countryside.
COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)
Summary:
Option RG2 is supported.
COMMENT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)
Summary:
RG1
SUPPORT David Roge Jennifer Rogers
Summary:
HG2 but take greater note of parish councils comments.
COMMENT Mr Ralph Carpenter
Summary:
HG2 although the number 10 dwellings is problematic because in many rural areas groups of dwellings with scope for increased development are often in smaller groups.
The number should be reduced to 5
COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight
Summary:
RG1 allows for greater flexibility and local accountability.
Having trouble using the system? Visit our 