Home > Planning > Planning Policy

Niobe

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - SS0818 - land south of B1113 Hall Lane, opposite junction with Half Moon Lane

Representation ID: 12070

SUPPORT The Thornhill Settlement (John Davie-Thornhill) represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Melissa Reynolds)

Summary:

Allocation of the site at land south of B1113 Hall Lane, opposite the junction with Half Moon Lane, Redgrave is supported. Following pre-application advice from the Council a development proposal that addresses its comments has been prepared ahead of submission of a full planning application. Having addressed the matters raised, the site is suitable for development and deliverable.

More details about Rep ID: 12070

Representation ID: 10582

OBJECT Mr John Preston

Summary:

The site is farmland on a very dangerous corner of the B1113 going through the village of Redgrave. The site is outside the settlement boundary, any access road onto the B1113 would cause enormous traffic problems.

More details about Rep ID: 10582

Representation ID: 10315

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

Majority of Redgrave benefits from conservation area designation and contains a number of listed buildings, including Grade II* Pink House and a large number of Grade II listed buildings. Site located in the conservation area itself. Development within the conservation area should be required to preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

More details about Rep ID: 10315

Representation ID: 2808

OBJECT mrs sandra stanley

Summary:

Any occupants of a new development would all have to drive to schools doctors etc causing more traffic on what is already a very narrow and busy road.
The proposed development is on a boundary with a conservation area and is inappropriate as there should continue to be green field agriculture land protection for conservation areas, there needs to be a gap between villages of farm land, otherwise we will lose our villages, and become one big town
There are already nearly 200 properties in Redgrave, which has no schools, doctors, dentists, or in fact any amenities at all.

More details about Rep ID: 2808

Representation ID: 2693

OBJECT Mr Chris Keeble

Summary:

Includes land with conservation area status.
Loss of amenity land, and prime agricultural land. Part of this area acts as a wildlife corridor, home to many species of bird and where protected bats around.
Every village has a continuing need for houses but it must be sustained and built for local needs not general market demand. Building the wrong type of house in the wrong place is understandable for builders' profit, but the loss is borne by us and our children.
Character of Redgrave would be lost. No school, no work, drainage and electricity infrastructure inadequate.
Suffolk is a proud agricultural county and we love it so.

More details about Rep ID: 2693

Representation ID: 2275

OBJECT Mr Michael Stanley

Summary:

There are already nearly 200 properties in Redgrave, which has no schools, doctors, dentists, or in fact any amenities at all.
Any occupants of a new development would all have to drive to schools doctors etc causing more traffic on what is already a very narrow and busy road.
The proposed development is on a boundary with a conservation area and is inappropriate as there should continue to be green field agriculture land protection for conservation areas, there needs to be a gap between villages of farm land, otherwise we will lose our villages, and become one big town

More details about Rep ID: 2275

Representation ID: 2118

OBJECT Ann Preston

Summary:

Residents have voiced thier objections as we do not need more large houses here, and it is out of the settlement boundary. The B1113 is very narrow and is near a dangerous sharp bend. The road already suffers from the inability to cope with the large vehicles using this 'B' road as a link between the A143 and A1066.

Village recently conducted a 'Housing Survey' identified a need of an average rate of 2 properties a year, which should be smaller dwellings.

Development would put our very weak infrastructure under severe pressure and impact local Health Centre and School. Botesdale and Rickinghall is already being considered for housing development which will affect the local roads and facilities.

What we really need are smaller dwellings and "Social Housing" for our younger residents and smaller households. This is not the same as "Affordable Housing".

More details about Rep ID: 2118

Representation ID: 1620

OBJECT Ms Rebecca Kleiser

Summary:

Potential development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, the conservation area, and setting of historic Redgrave.
Destroy one of the most beautiful and exceptional views in Suffolk. Irreplaceable arable land and open space, and should be protected.
Would create a village 'sprawl'.
Detrimental impact on residential impact on residential amenities, with a negative effect on the well-being of the community. This area should be designated a Local Green Space or an AONB. Not an appropriate scale of expansion of the size of Redgrave. Wildlife and their habitat would be destroyed or disturbed. Houses should be built on derelict land.
Prioritise genuine local need which is minimal. In light of developments already proposed in this area, it is an unacceptable level of new dwellings, not only in Redgrave, but in neighbouring villages.

More details about Rep ID: 1620

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

Powered by OpusConsult