Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

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) - Q28

Representation ID: 16154

COMMENT Paul Reeley

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16154

Representation ID: 16132

COMMENT Ms. Perpetua Ratcliffe

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16132

Representation ID: 16110

COMMENT Mr P. Pollard

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16110

Representation ID: 16088

COMMENT Mrs Natalie Brook

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16088

Representation ID: 16066

COMMENT Mrs J. Pollard

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16066

Representation ID: 16044

COMMENT Mr Gavin Brook

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16044

Representation ID: 16022

COMMENT Mr Michael Hills

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16022

Representation ID: 16000

COMMENT Mrs Helena Knight

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 16000

Representation ID: 15978

COMMENT Mr Roger Knight

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15978

Representation ID: 15956

COMMENT Mrs J. A. Moore

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15956

Representation ID: 15934

COMMENT Miss Jane Anne Moore

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15934

Representation ID: 15912

COMMENT Mr John Moore

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15912

Representation ID: 15890

COMMENT Mr Dennis John Griggs

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15890

Representation ID: 15868

COMMENT Miss Hockley

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15868

Representation ID: 15846

COMMENT Mr Castle

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15846

Representation ID: 15824

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rowntree

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15824

Representation ID: 15802

COMMENT Mr Carl Rowntree

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15802

Representation ID: 15780

COMMENT Miss Patricia Copeman

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15780

Representation ID: 15758

COMMENT Mr Barry Pearce

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15758

Representation ID: 15736

COMMENT Mrs Faith Marsden

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15736

Representation ID: 15714

COMMENT Mrs Clare Kiely

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15714

Representation ID: 15692

COMMENT Mr Michael Kiely

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15692

Representation ID: 15670

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Maisey

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15670

Representation ID: 15648

COMMENT Mr John Maisey

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15648

Representation ID: 15626

COMMENT Mrs Dorothy Scrivener

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15626

Representation ID: 15604

COMMENT Mr George Scrivener

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15604

Representation ID: 15582

COMMENT Mrs Linda Dennison

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15582

Representation ID: 15560

COMMENT Mr Ralph W. Godbold

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15560

Representation ID: 15538

COMMENT Mrs Blythe Smith

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15538

Representation ID: 15516

COMMENT Mr Richard Smith

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15516

Representation ID: 15494

COMMENT Mrs G. P. Godbold

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15494

Representation ID: 15472

COMMENT Mr. Giles Godbold

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15472

Representation ID: 15450

COMMENT Mrs Sally Hoskyns

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15450

Representation ID: 15428

COMMENT Mr George Major

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15428

Representation ID: 15406

COMMENT Mrs Audrey Cremer

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15406

Representation ID: 15384

COMMENT Ms. Cindy Hughes

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15384

Representation ID: 15362

COMMENT Mr. Anthony Wickenden

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15362

Representation ID: 15340

COMMENT Mrs Irene Wickenden

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15340

Representation ID: 15318

COMMENT Mrs Jacqueline Cordwell

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15318

Representation ID: 15296

COMMENT Mr Leslie Graham Walter Cremer

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15296

Representation ID: 15274

COMMENT Mr. D.I.O. Johnson

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15274

Representation ID: 15252

COMMENT Mrs D. Johnson

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15252

Representation ID: 15230

COMMENT Anthony & Tracy Keeble

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15230

Representation ID: 15208

COMMENT Mr. John Fensom

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15208

Representation ID: 15186

COMMENT Mr. Alan Cordwell

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15186

Representation ID: 15164

COMMENT Mrs Annette Dovell

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15164

Representation ID: 15142

COMMENT Mr. Martin Hewett

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15142

Representation ID: 15120

COMMENT Ms. Shirley Hewett

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15120

Representation ID: 15098

COMMENT Mrs. Carol Forward

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15098

Representation ID: 15076

COMMENT Mr. Grant Lloyd

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15076

Representation ID: 15054

COMMENT Mrts. Natasha Lloyd

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15054

Representation ID: 15032

COMMENT Mr. John Forward

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15032

Representation ID: 15010

COMMENT Mr. Hoskyns

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 15010

Representation ID: 14988

COMMENT Miss Isabel De Minvielle Devaux

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14988

Representation ID: 14966

COMMENT Mr. Ian East

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14966

Representation ID: 14944

COMMENT Ms. Tracy East

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14944

Representation ID: 14922

COMMENT Ms. Ilona Northall

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14922

Representation ID: 14900

COMMENT Mr. Alex James Richard May

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14900

Representation ID: 14878

COMMENT Mr. Richard John May

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14878

Representation ID: 14856

COMMENT Ms. Kathryn Anne May

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14856

Representation ID: 14834

COMMENT Ms. Olivia Frances Chloe May

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14834

Representation ID: 14812

COMMENT Mr. Charles Hogger

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14812

Representation ID: 14790

COMMENT Ms. Jo-Ann Hogger

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14790

Representation ID: 14768

COMMENT Mr P. L. Ratcliffe

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14768

Representation ID: 14746

COMMENT Miss Tracey Durling

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14746

Representation ID: 14724

COMMENT Mrs Carol Griggs

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 14724

Representation ID: 13238

COMMENT Mr. Artist

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 13238

Representation ID: 13176

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

Summary:

We support the approach set out by the Council in HG2 that has been proposed for hamlets. This allows for the hamlets across Babergh Mid Suffolk Districts to be considered on their own merits, as the circumstances for each of these settlements is going to be different.

More details about Rep ID: 13176

Representation ID: 12944

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

....any practical reason why hamlets that could be considered for proportional enlargement should be road facing and of more than 10 houses when the county has clusters on unadopted roads, away from the highway, that could be sensitively enlarged? Merit based criteria would be required and due consideration should be given to the neighbourhood viewpoints. Such locations might be ideal for genuine self-build projects where the builder is likely to want to be a good neighbour.

More details about Rep ID: 12944

Representation ID: 12492

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

Summary:

We support the approach set out by the Council in HG2 that has been proposed for hamlets. This allows for the hamlets across Babergh Mid Suffolk Districts to be considered on their own merits, as the circumstances for each of these settlements is going to be different.

More details about Rep ID: 12492

Representation ID: 12397

SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

Yes - agree

More details about Rep ID: 12397

Representation ID: 12335

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

Summary:

We support the approach set out by the Council in HG2 that has been proposed for hamlets. This allows for the hamlets across Babergh and Mid Suffolk Districts to be considered on their own merits, as the circumstances for each of these settlements is going to be different.

More details about Rep ID: 12335

Representation ID: 12263

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

Summary:

Whilst the principle of infilling in hamlets is supported, the numbers involved will be very small.

More details about Rep ID: 12263

Representation ID: 11784

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

*Proportionality is key; The JLP proposes a 9% Housing need over 20 years. This equates to one new home in a ten house hamlet, but why stop there. Such growth is potentially desirable naturally matching the growth of any micro community. Generally children grow older and want their own homes within their community, why shouldn't the provision and burden be spread evenly at 9%, by hamlet, village and town.
*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: 11784

Representation ID: 11429

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS is genuinely concerned about opening the door to intensification in the hamlets, especially within the AONB. See above. This needs further review.

More details about Rep ID: 11429

Representation ID: 11303

SUPPORT Lacy Scott & Knight (Mr. Alex Turner)

Summary:

Yes we support the proposed approach:

Option HG2 - Include a policy in the new Joint Local Plan which would support appropriate infill development in 'hamlets' (considered to be a nucleus of at least 10 dwellings fronting the highway) which will not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the cluster, would not consolidate settlements or result in ribbon development.

This approach to infill development in the countryside would allow proportionate, sustainable development distributed more evenly across the district.

More details about Rep ID: 11303

Representation ID: 11022

SUPPORT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council supports the proposed approach for hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 11022

Representation ID: 10927

SUPPORT Lady Anne Windsor Charity (Deborah Langstaff)

Summary:

Yes this seems perfectly reasonable provided that each of the policy criteria is given equal weight.

More details about Rep ID: 10927

Representation ID: 10794

SUPPORT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 10794

Representation ID: 10741

SUPPORT Brent Eleigh Parish Council (Mr William Grosvenor)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 10741

Representation ID: 10718

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

The present policies are restrictive on small/individual development, in that what appears to be acceptable infills and small extensions to village boarders.
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.
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: 10718

Representation ID: 10649

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

No- Hamlets should not be extended as they are part of the countryside. people chose to live in hamlets because they prefer the rural location. building more houses would take away their choice of where they prefer to live.

More details about Rep ID: 10649

Representation ID: 10299

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We support the approach set out by the Council in HG2 that has been proposed for hamlets. This allows for the hamlets across Babergh and Mid Suffolk Districts to be considered on their own merits, as the circumstances for each of these settlements is going to be different.

More details about Rep ID: 10299

Representation ID: 10069

OBJECT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

No, there is concern that approach fails to account for local character and distinctiveness. Hamlets are often historic clusters. The approach taken is somewhat arbitrary and there is no evidence to show how the threshold of 10 dwellings has been established. Criterion proposed in HG2 is helpful, but it mist be made clear what is meant by undue harm. Small scale development of this nature
may be better delivered via a policy approach which assesses development
proposals on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 10069

Representation ID: 9932

COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

Hamlets (HG2)
Regarding infill in hamlets, the wording of HG2 which is of most concern is 'will not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the cluster'. This gives very little protection to the area. There is no comment on the density of infill allowed - it is the spaces between dwellings which contributes to the rural feel of an area. Perhaps a clear ratio of house to plot depending on the local character could be defined. There must only ever be a small percentage increase in number of dwellings in an existing hamlet.

More details about Rep ID: 9932

Representation ID: 9901

COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

Some growth can be allowed in hamlets if it is proportionate, of a suitable density, design and if it enhances the hamlet. Phrases such as development that does not "cause undue harm" seem to water down current guidelines where new development should enhance the area.

More details about Rep ID: 9901

Representation ID: 9856

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

HG2 is preferred but what is meant by 'would not consolidate settlements'?

More details about Rep ID: 9856

Representation ID: 9719

OBJECT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

As it is stated that 'National policy sets out that development should be distributed in a way which reduces the need to travel, supports the retention of existing services and helps to sustain rural areas' it would seem that neither HG1 or HG2 are sensible. However, if suitable sites are available to be purchased by individual families, building consent could be considered.

More details about Rep ID: 9719

Representation ID: 9547

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Hamlets used to be "recognised" under PPG's and PPS's but were effectively erased by previous central Government. Some flexibility should be given but if we are to be truly environmentally aware, the broader concept of sustainability should rule out the use of anything other than bicycles and public transport.

More details about Rep ID: 9547

Representation ID: 9536

SUPPORT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

The present policies are restrictive on small/individual development, in that what appears to be acceptable infill and small extensions to village boarders.
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.
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: 9536

Representation ID: 9201

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

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: 9201

Representation ID: 9126

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

Summary:

No - infill is village cramming. Modest peripheral growth should be allowed to preserve the open nature of hamlets

More details about Rep ID: 9126

Representation ID: 9071

SUPPORT Simon Bell

Summary:

HG2 is fine for small scale development of true "infill". As long as this is adjacent to an existing highway frontage within small hamlets it is unlikely to cause damage to the sustainability of such areas, However, a limited sequencing approach to policy would be required to ensure that hamlets do not find the size of the hamlet growing from say 10 habitable dwellings to 20.

The scale of delivery of this policy against housing need is limited and as such priority should be on major housing delivery where possible.

More details about Rep ID: 9071

Representation ID: 9032

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Option HG2 would seem reasonable but would need to be on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 9032

Representation ID: 8791

SUPPORT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Yes - HG2 - if sensitivity is guaranteed

More details about Rep ID: 8791

Representation ID: 8634

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: 8634

Representation ID: 8626

SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

Option HG2 would safeguard the essential character of hamlet settlements

More details about Rep ID: 8626

Representation ID: 8583

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

Summary:

No - infill is village cramming. Modest peripheral growth should be allowed to preserve the open nature of hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 8583

Representation ID: 8479

COMMENT Brome and Oakley Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Option HG1 - to continue to view these as open country side, with small organic development such as 1-3 houses only, rather than wholesale infill by larger developers.

More details about Rep ID: 8479

Representation ID: 8374

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Refer to question 26

More details about Rep ID: 8374

Representation ID: 8369

SUPPORT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council support Option HG2.

More details about Rep ID: 8369

Representation ID: 8281

COMMENT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

I support HG2, development across the district has to be allowed to happen, including in Hamlets. Development has happened across all parishes little by little over the years, continuation of gentle growth is sensible and allows communities to thrive with a good social mix. Villages can't be allowed to just stagnate with development only directed at larger settlements/towns. Currently it is difficult for young people who were brought up in a village/hamlet to be able to stay near their family when they wish to move out of the family home. The key is appropriate gentle growth.

More details about Rep ID: 8281

Representation ID: 8230

SUPPORT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Yes, but as in Q27 above it may be better not be restricted to Hamlets of 10 houses or more.

More details about Rep ID: 8230

Representation ID: 8136

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

Summary:

I support HG2.

More details about Rep ID: 8136

Representation ID: 8016

SUPPORT Suffolk Preservation Society (Bethany Philbedge)

Summary:

Yes, we prefer option HG2

More details about Rep ID: 8016

Representation ID: 7647

SUPPORT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Yes, but as in Q27 above it should not be restricted to Hamlets of 10 houses or more.

More details about Rep ID: 7647

Representation ID: 7495

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

HG1.

More details about Rep ID: 7495

Representation ID: 6828

SUPPORT mrs Netty Verkroost

Summary:

HG2 support

More details about Rep ID: 6828

Representation ID: 6744

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

Yes but as said before it may be better not to be restricted the Hamlets of 10 houses or more.

More details about Rep ID: 6744

Representation ID: 6718

SUPPORT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

Agree with HG2

More details about Rep ID: 6718

Representation ID: 6592

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council supports Option HG2

More details about Rep ID: 6592

Representation ID: 6494

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

There is some ambiguity between HG2 and RG2

More details about Rep ID: 6494

Representation ID: 6426

SUPPORT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 6426

Representation ID: 6346

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

continuation of the current approach which would classify hamlets as open countryside in the settlement hierarchy.

More details about Rep ID: 6346

Representation ID: 6280

SUPPORT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

Support HG2

More details about Rep ID: 6280

Representation ID: 6018

OBJECT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

For the reasons given in answer to Q26, we do not support any approach that leads to the removal of existing settlement boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 6018

Representation ID: 5938

SUPPORT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC supports.

More details about Rep ID: 5938

Representation ID: 5882

OBJECT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Considering Little Cornard, there appear to be inconsistencies. Workhouse Green, which has significant infrastructure issues such as narrow roads, lack of mains drainage etc., should be countryside with no defined settlement boundary. The area adjoining the Bures Road B1508 towards Sudbury has a significant population and some possible potential for small scale development and should be included in the plans. The need to restrict strip development along the B1508 road boundary should always be considered.

More details about Rep ID: 5882

Representation ID: 5863

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Option HG2 would seem reasonable but would need to be on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 5863

Representation ID: 5718

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

HG2 supported.
Draft criteria too restrictive. Inclusion of Exception Sites to be available where local need is proven. Exception Sites definition to include up to 35% open market provision.

More details about Rep ID: 5718

Representation ID: 5565

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 5565

Representation ID: 5005

SUPPORT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

We support HG2, to avoid 'freezing' these smaller communities into stasis.

More details about Rep ID: 5005

Representation ID: 4914

SUPPORT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 4914

Representation ID: 4641

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Yes 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: 4641

Representation ID: 4640

OBJECT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

HG2 supported.
Draft criteria too restrictive. Inclusion of Exception Sites to be available where local need is proven. Exception Sites definition to include up to 35% open market provision.

More details about Rep ID: 4640

Representation ID: 4527

SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

HG2 - there should be flexibility if a need for development is proven

More details about Rep ID: 4527

Representation ID: 4493

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The Parish Council does not support HG2 because it is concerned that this approach might lead to large scale development of hamlets. The Parish Council supports the existing criteria based approach where each application is considered individually.

More details about Rep ID: 4493

Representation ID: 4242

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

We support the HG1 designation.

More details about Rep ID: 4242

Representation ID: 3915

COMMENT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

Option HG2 is supported as it gives some control against unsympathetic and poorly located developments in hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 3915

Representation ID: 3675

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Support HG2 allowing development actually achieving levels that do not dramatically change any community, with no erosion of the local landscape, views and ecology.

More details about Rep ID: 3675

Representation ID: 3439

OBJECT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Yes, but as in Q27 above it may be better not be restricted to Hamlets of 10 houses or more.

More details about Rep ID: 3439

Representation ID: 3428

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

In principal the Parish Council supported the HG2 option for hamlet development and agreed that caution should be exercised to avoid creating ribbon developments.

More details about Rep ID: 3428

Representation ID: 3340

SUPPORT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

This approach is supported as long as it supports incremental growth in hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 3340

Representation ID: 3307

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

Summary:

HG2 is the appropriate approach for hamlets to provide flexibility for some
appropriate growth consistent with national planning policy. In addition to
appropriate infill, the policy should also allow for appropriate development on the
edge of clusters in certain circumstances, where there would be no undue harm to
the character and appearance of the cluster.

More details about Rep ID: 3307

Representation ID: 3248

SUPPORT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

HG2 would be the preferred option but smaller developments should be considered if they in keeping with the character of the hamlet

More details about Rep ID: 3248

Representation ID: 2989

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

HG1

More details about Rep ID: 2989

Representation ID: 2868

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

Summary:

As per the response to Q27 above, with Option HG2 preferred but avoiding the absolute criteria of a minimum of ten dwellings, not all of which need to be fronting the highway.

More details about Rep ID: 2868

Representation ID: 2619

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council supports proposal HG2.

More details about Rep ID: 2619

Representation ID: 2594

COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)

Summary:

Consider Option HG2 is most suitable for the reason given in answer to Question 26 and also to provide control against unplanned, speculative and incremental spread of developments in hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 2594

Representation ID: 2468

OBJECT Mrs Carol Ingleson

Summary:

I think that Hamlets should be treated as open countryside and any development would be a danger to the environment and wildlife.

More details about Rep ID: 2468

Representation ID: 2428

COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

HG1 would be supported.

More details about Rep ID: 2428

Representation ID: 2327

SUPPORT Mr Barry Dixon

Summary:

The structure of Mid-Suffolk, as a labyrinth of small settlements, will make it impossible to re-introduce services lost over recent years. The houses, which remain, constitute Hamlets, which are effectively ribbon developments on rural roads, and thus would be better classified as Open Countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 2327

Representation ID: 2283

OBJECT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

This approach would be likely to lead to ribbon development and destruction of hamlet character.

More details about Rep ID: 2283

Representation ID: 2227

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

More details about Rep ID: 2227

Representation ID: 1926

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Option HG2 but avoiding the absolute rigidity of a minimum of ten dwellings, not all of which need to be fronting the highway.

More details about Rep ID: 1926

Representation ID: 1888

OBJECT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

All communities need growth just to keep pace with the national population growth. There is a vast amount of space in Suffolk and all communities need to keep a mixed population which includes people of all economic classes. Many hamlets never had the mixture of services and facilities available in the larger villages and small towns yet they still function. Why should the benefits of living in open countryside be limited to a few wealthy individuals when families who have lived in the same communities for generations can no longer to afford to live in such communities.

More details about Rep ID: 1888

Representation ID: 1825

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Support RG2 approach

More details about Rep ID: 1825

Representation ID: 1758

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Support this proposal

More details about Rep ID: 1758

Representation ID: 1672

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council does not wish to comment.

More details about Rep ID: 1672

Representation ID: 1408

SUPPORT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 1408

Representation ID: 1296

OBJECT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I do not see the need to introduce Option HG2, replacing HG1. The introduction of a village/hamlet boundary and HG2 would encouage proposals totally out of scale with the hamlets concerned. In Long Thurlow, officer appraisals in the SHEELA identify sites that could accommodate 125 homes. Officer suggestions of even 10+10+5 (sites 0558,0809, 0814) is way beyond the infilling of "one detached or two semi detached" properties as mentioned in the criteria under Option HG2. Clearly officers have considered that the cumulative impact of 25 homes is not significant, even in such an unsustainable location.I do not agree.

More details about Rep ID: 1296

Representation ID: 1249

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Option HG2 is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 1249

Representation ID: 1143

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Yes but subject to a settlement boundary so large developments outside cannot blight current dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 1143

Representation ID: 958

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

lot of small developments are better than one large development . the infrastructure can take small bits In filling only no back development,

More details about Rep ID: 958

Representation ID: 565

SUPPORT David Roge Jennifer Rogers

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 565

Representation ID: 403

COMMENT Mr Ralph Carpenter

Summary:

SUpport for hamlets in principle although reduce the size of hamlets to 5 dwellings to respond to the scale of existing communities

More details about Rep ID: 403

Representation ID: 285

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

HG2

More details about Rep ID: 285

Representation ID: 199

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Balanced approach

More details about Rep ID: 199

Representation ID: 117

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

yes

More details about Rep ID: 117

Representation ID: 8

COMMENT Prof George Constantinides

Summary:

I do not support the proposed HG2. I support HG1 - the continuation of the existing approach - for the reasons discussed in my previous comments.

More details about Rep ID: 8

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

Powered by OpusConsult