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) - Q26

Representation ID: 16152

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.

More details about Rep ID: 16152

Representation ID: 16130

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.

More details about Rep ID: 16130

Representation ID: 16108

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.

More details about Rep ID: 16108

Representation ID: 16086

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.

More details about Rep ID: 16086

Representation ID: 16064

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.

More details about Rep ID: 16064

Representation ID: 16042

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.

More details about Rep ID: 16042

Representation ID: 16020

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.

More details about Rep ID: 16020

Representation ID: 15998

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15998

Representation ID: 15976

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15976

Representation ID: 15954

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15954

Representation ID: 15932

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15932

Representation ID: 15910

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15910

Representation ID: 15888

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15888

Representation ID: 15866

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15866

Representation ID: 15844

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15844

Representation ID: 15822

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15822

Representation ID: 15800

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15800

Representation ID: 15778

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15778

Representation ID: 15756

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15756

Representation ID: 15734

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15734

Representation ID: 15712

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15712

Representation ID: 15690

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15690

Representation ID: 15668

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15668

Representation ID: 15646

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15646

Representation ID: 15624

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15624

Representation ID: 15602

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15602

Representation ID: 15580

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15580

Representation ID: 15558

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15558

Representation ID: 15536

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15536

Representation ID: 15514

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15514

Representation ID: 15492

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15492

Representation ID: 15470

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15470

Representation ID: 15448

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15448

Representation ID: 15426

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15426

Representation ID: 15404

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15404

Representation ID: 15382

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15382

Representation ID: 15360

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15360

Representation ID: 15338

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15338

Representation ID: 15316

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15316

Representation ID: 15294

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15294

Representation ID: 15272

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15272

Representation ID: 15250

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15250

Representation ID: 15228

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15228

Representation ID: 15206

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15206

Representation ID: 15184

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15184

Representation ID: 15162

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15162

Representation ID: 15140

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15140

Representation ID: 15118

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15118

Representation ID: 15096

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15096

Representation ID: 15074

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15074

Representation ID: 15052

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15052

Representation ID: 15030

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15030

Representation ID: 15008

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.

More details about Rep ID: 15008

Representation ID: 14986

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14986

Representation ID: 14964

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14964

Representation ID: 14942

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14942

Representation ID: 14920

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14920

Representation ID: 14898

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14898

Representation ID: 14876

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14876

Representation ID: 14854

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14854

Representation ID: 14832

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14832

Representation ID: 14810

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14810

Representation ID: 14788

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14788

Representation ID: 14766

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14766

Representation ID: 14744

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14744

Representation ID: 14722

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.

More details about Rep ID: 14722

Representation ID: 13236

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.

More details about Rep ID: 13236

Representation ID: 13222

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.

More details about Rep ID: 13222

Representation ID: 13174

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.

More details about Rep ID: 13174

Representation ID: 13008

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.

More details about Rep ID: 13008

Representation ID: 12939

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12939

Representation ID: 12865

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12865

Representation ID: 12797

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12797

Representation ID: 12761

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12761

Representation ID: 12752

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12752

Representation ID: 12666

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

More details about Rep ID: 12666

Representation ID: 12596

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12596

Representation ID: 12489

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12489

Representation ID: 12395

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 12395

Representation ID: 12333

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12333

Representation ID: 12261

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12261

Representation ID: 12230

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12230

Representation ID: 12199

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12199

Representation ID: 12108

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12108

Representation ID: 12077

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12077

Representation ID: 12063

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12063

Representation ID: 12038

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12038

Representation ID: 12017

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12017

Representation ID: 12000

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12000

Representation ID: 11952

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11952

Representation ID: 11850

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11850

Representation ID: 11782

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11782

Representation ID: 11673

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11673

Representation ID: 11639

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11639

Representation ID: 11593

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11593

Representation ID: 11586

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11586

Representation ID: 11553

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11553

Representation ID: 11522

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)

More details about Rep ID: 11522

Representation ID: 11500

COMMENT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )

Summary:

GCPC does not support option HG2 and is in favour of HG1.

More details about Rep ID: 11500

Representation ID: 11426

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?

More details about Rep ID: 11426

Representation ID: 11339

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11339

Representation ID: 11226

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11226

Representation ID: 11199

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11199

Representation ID: 11118

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11118

Representation ID: 11039

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11039

Representation ID: 11021

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that option RG2 is most appropriate for rural growth.

More details about Rep ID: 11021

Representation ID: 10924

COMMENT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

Option RG2 is supported

More details about Rep ID: 10924

Representation ID: 10865

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10865

Representation ID: 10792

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

RG1/HG2 support

More details about Rep ID: 10792

Representation ID: 10739

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

More details about Rep ID: 10739

Representation ID: 10716

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

More details about Rep ID: 10716

Representation ID: 10690

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10690

Representation ID: 10646

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Neither

More details about Rep ID: 10646

Representation ID: 10569

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10569

Representation ID: 10504

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10504

Representation ID: 10426

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10426

Representation ID: 10287

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

More details about Rep ID: 10287

Representation ID: 10067

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10067

Representation ID: 9999

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9999

Representation ID: 9930

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9930

Representation ID: 9899

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9899

Representation ID: 9855

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9855

Representation ID: 9830

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).

More details about Rep ID: 9830

Representation ID: 9716

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

RG1 as this should mean that each case in judged individually.

More details about Rep ID: 9716

Representation ID: 9647

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;

More details about Rep ID: 9647

Representation ID: 9544

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9544

Representation ID: 9527

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9527

Representation ID: 9443

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 9443

Representation ID: 9328

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9328

Representation ID: 9255

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9255

Representation ID: 9238

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9238

Representation ID: 9124

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

Summary:

Some growth in hamlets should be allowed

More details about Rep ID: 9124

Representation ID: 9030

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Option RG1 the alternative results in hinterland villages being unfairly diminished with no recompense.

More details about Rep ID: 9030

Representation ID: 8994

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8994

Representation ID: 8985

COMMENT Andrew Searle

Summary:

Rural growth has to complement the area it is going into, not dominate or disturb, so only smaller developments.

More details about Rep ID: 8985

Representation ID: 8783

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

More details about Rep ID: 8783

Representation ID: 8631

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8631

Representation ID: 8622

SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

RG2 is the preferred option

More details about Rep ID: 8622

Representation ID: 8576

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

Summary:

Some growth in hamlets should be allowed

More details about Rep ID: 8576

Representation ID: 8364

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8364

Representation ID: 8359

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8359

Representation ID: 8249

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8249

Representation ID: 8213

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if Babergh supports rural development at a proportionate level.

More details about Rep ID: 8213

Representation ID: 8123

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8123

Representation ID: 8059

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

More details about Rep ID: 8059

Representation ID: 8026

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8026

Representation ID: 8014

COMMENT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

We prefer option RG2

More details about Rep ID: 8014

Representation ID: 7817

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7817

Representation ID: 7645

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

* Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if you support rural development at a proportionate level.

More details about Rep ID: 7645

Representation ID: 7606

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

RG2.

More details about Rep ID: 7606

Representation ID: 7493

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7493

Representation ID: 7429

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

RG2.

More details about Rep ID: 7429

Representation ID: 7166

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

More details about Rep ID: 7166

Representation ID: 7115

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

Development in Rural Areas should be for Farm Workers, Home Office Workers or Retirement only.

More details about Rep ID: 7115

Representation ID: 7044

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7044

Representation ID: 6722

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

Possibly RG2, however it could go further if it supported rural development at a proportionate

More details about Rep ID: 6722

Representation ID: 6521

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6521

Representation ID: 6489

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Support RG2 but with limits on size of development

More details about Rep ID: 6489

Representation ID: 6424

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

HG2

More details about Rep ID: 6424

Representation ID: 6343

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6343

Representation ID: 6286

SUPPORT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

Support RG2 but with the proviso that "proportionate" is actually applied.

More details about Rep ID: 6286

Representation ID: 6258

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6258

Representation ID: 6181

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6181

Representation ID: 5993

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5993

Representation ID: 5931

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes option RG2 is most appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 5931

Representation ID: 5860

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Option RG1 the alternative results in hinterland villages being unfairly diminished with no recompense.

More details about Rep ID: 5860

Representation ID: 5744

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5744

Representation ID: 5715

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

RG1

More details about Rep ID: 5715

Representation ID: 5714

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

RG1

More details about Rep ID: 5714

Representation ID: 5562

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

RG2 is our preferred choice not HG2 as previously submitted.

More details about Rep ID: 5562

Representation ID: 5558

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

HG2

More details about Rep ID: 5558

Representation ID: 5470

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council supports option RG2

More details about Rep ID: 5470

Representation ID: 5387

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5387

Representation ID: 5226

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5226

Representation ID: 5121

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.

More details about Rep ID: 5121

Representation ID: 4999

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'.

More details about Rep ID: 4999

Representation ID: 4908

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

We prefer option RG2.

More details about Rep ID: 4908

Representation ID: 4873

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.

More details about Rep ID: 4873

Representation ID: 4638

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

More details about Rep ID: 4638

Representation ID: 4636

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

RG1

More details about Rep ID: 4636

Representation ID: 4534

COMMENT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

RG2 - there should be flexibility if a need for development is proven

More details about Rep ID: 4534

Representation ID: 4490

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The Parish Council would support rural growth option RG1 - a policy criteria based approach.

More details about Rep ID: 4490

Representation ID: 4295

SUPPORT Mr Jeremy Doncaster

Summary:

I support RG1 developments should be limited to small developments.

More details about Rep ID: 4295

Representation ID: 4239

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 4239

Representation ID: 4205

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

HG2

More details about Rep ID: 4205

Representation ID: 4198

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.

More details about Rep ID: 4198

Representation ID: 4018

COMMENT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

* Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if you support rural development at a proportionate level.

More details about Rep ID: 4018

Representation ID: 3914

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

More details about Rep ID: 3914

Representation ID: 3672

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.

More details about Rep ID: 3672

Representation ID: 3575

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.

More details about Rep ID: 3575

Representation ID: 3436

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Possibly RG2. However, it could go further if you support rural development at a proportionate level.

More details about Rep ID: 3436

Representation ID: 3423

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.

More details about Rep ID: 3423

Representation ID: 3339

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

More details about Rep ID: 3339

Representation ID: 3286

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.

More details about Rep ID: 3286

Representation ID: 3246

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Option RG2 would be preferable

More details about Rep ID: 3246

Representation ID: 3138

SUPPORT Iain Pocock

Summary:

Needs to be carefully controlled and small scale aimed at local needs

More details about Rep ID: 3138

Representation ID: 2986

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 2986

Representation ID: 2866

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2866

Representation ID: 2767

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2767

Representation ID: 2704

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2704

Representation ID: 2617

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council supports proposal RG2; however, only following a re-appraisal of the settlement hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 2617

Representation ID: 2590

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

More details about Rep ID: 2590

Representation ID: 2493

COMMENT Mr Brian HUNT

Summary:

Flexible approach to allocate SMALL sites.

More details about Rep ID: 2493

Representation ID: 2427

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2427

Representation ID: 2281

SUPPORT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

We support RG1

More details about Rep ID: 2281

Representation ID: 2224

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

HG2

More details about Rep ID: 2224

Representation ID: 2143

SUPPORT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

Option RG2 would provide far greater certainty than CS11 which is unfit for purpose.

More details about Rep ID: 2143

Representation ID: 2060

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 2060

Representation ID: 1924

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Option RG2.

More details about Rep ID: 1924

Representation ID: 1823

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Support for option RG2

More details about Rep ID: 1823

Representation ID: 1756

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 1756

Representation ID: 1670

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council supports the Options in RG2

More details about Rep ID: 1670

Representation ID: 1448

COMMENT Ms Ann Tarran

Summary:

Option HG 2 with tighter criteria for Conservation Areas

More details about Rep ID: 1448

Representation ID: 1406

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 1406

Representation ID: 1295

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1295

Representation ID: 1247

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Option RG2 is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 1247

Representation ID: 1141

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 1141

Representation ID: 955

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

RE2

More details about Rep ID: 955

Representation ID: 808

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

Summary:

RG1

More details about Rep ID: 808

Representation ID: 564

SUPPORT David Roge Jennifer Rogers

Summary:

HG2 but take greater note of parish councils comments.

More details about Rep ID: 564

Representation ID: 401

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

More details about Rep ID: 401

Representation ID: 283

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

RG2

More details about Rep ID: 283

Representation ID: 116

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

RG1 allows for greater flexibility and local accountability.

More details about Rep ID: 116

Representation ID: 7

COMMENT Prof George Constantinides

Summary:

HG1, as indicated above

More details about Rep ID: 7

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

Powered by OpusConsult