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) - SS0486 - land south of Churchway

Representation ID: 12162

SUPPORT LRM Planning Ltd (michael rees)

Summary:

Our clients control site reference SS00486 Land South of Churchway, Redgrave. Additional information is submitted in respect of this site confirming its suitability for allocation. Preparation of proposals is on going and our clients are liaising with local stakeholders in respect of the future form of development including the provision of housing and the long term safeguarding of the existing recreation provision. In this regard, we expect that proposals will be worked up into more details in coming months.


see detailed attachments.

More details about Rep ID: 12162

Representation ID: 10572

OBJECT Mr John Preston

Summary:

I object to the site being identified for possible development as the site is a children's play area, sports field and recreational space. we don not have any alternative land for the play area and any loss would be total for the current and future young people of the village

More details about Rep ID: 10572

Representation ID: 10317

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 constitutes a substantial extension to the settlement which would occupy the existing cricket ground and open space beyond. Presence of heritage assets and their settings should therefore be considered carefully as part of the allocation process. It is not clear if the cricket ground has historic interest or is of local importance so it is advised that further information is provided to clarify this point.

The substantial urban extension would affect the setting of the settlement and conservation, any mitigation measures such as buffer zones, landscaping and position of open space should be considered as part of the allocation process.

More details about Rep ID: 10317

Representation ID: 9927

OBJECT Ian & Elaine Brown

Summary:

The SHELAA anticipates a yield of 15 dwellings which we believe may be sustainable, subject to comment by local amenity managers such as doctors, schools, water and drainage, highways etc. Any development of the existing playing field must ensure:
No loss of amenities centre
No loss of open space amenities
Character of the village and conservation area is not compromised
No significant negative impact on highway access

We would be very concerned if any development were to have a negative impact on our enjoyment of our property.

Please could you inform us whether the agricultural land is to be considered as part of the local plan?

More details about Rep ID: 9927

Representation ID: 8175

OBJECT Miss Poppy Kleiser

Summary:

Utterly despairing at the idea of building houses at the end of the recreational ground, they would be built on the next parcel of land; a meadow, long left for flora and fauna offering unique views.

Agricultural land which is essential for Suffolk and Britain.

More details about Rep ID: 8175

Representation ID: 6633

OBJECT Adam Lamb & Tina Lamb

Summary:

We completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole Potential Development Site because:
Scale of development would more than double the number of homes in the village
Total loss of amenity land
Great strain on local drainage, health, schooling and electricity infrastructure
Access is via a narrow village land which joins the village in a conservation area
New families needing schools and health centre in Botesdale - 2.5miles away
Villiage amenities are very limited meaning new residents would be making daily car journeys to Botesdale/Rickinghall or Diss in South Norfolk increasing traffic through the village

More details about Rep ID: 6633

Representation ID: 5974

OBJECT Mr John Giddings and 233 others

Summary:

We object to the inclusion of any of this 32 acre site as potential housing development because the development would be inappropriate:

It would cause harm to the village community by the loss of its play area, open space, recreation area, sports area, village hall, all of its clubs, and off road parking which are in a safe location next to the village centre.
It would Increase the area occupied by housing in Redgrave by a massive 50% detrimentally changing its character from a historic and scenic village to a suburbia with no facilities, infrastructure,jobs or transport.
It is therefore contrary to government planning policy and defies logic .

More details about Rep ID: 5974

Representation ID: 5884

OBJECT Olive Webster

Summary:

The area is currently a green open space enjoyed by the whole village.

The scale of development is completely out of proportion and would more than double the number of dwellings currently in the village. Such an increase would completely change the unique character of the village and would result in the urbanisation of a rural community.

It would put an enormous and unsustainable strain on the infrastructure. It would increase traffic. there is no school, doctor or proper shop, families would have to drive to nearby village. Highly unlikely that residents would be employed in the village, leading to commuting traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 5884

Representation ID: 3296

OBJECT Suffolk Football Association (Mrs Jodie Allard)

Summary:

The recreational space is currently used as a playing space by Redgrave Rangers FC, a Suffolk FA affiliated football club. Redgrave Rangers are a community based club which provide opportunities for adults to participate in football from the local area. The Council's Local Plan Consultation Document makes no reference to any alternative proposed venues for this club to relocate to. With the national decline in adult football it is vital that clubs are supported to continue to play community football on local sites.

Therefore, Suffolk FA objects to the development of the land south of Churchway in Redgrave.

More details about Rep ID: 3296

Representation ID: 2692

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: 2692

Representation ID: 2511

OBJECT Mr Marcus Green

Summary:

Completely object to the land south of Churchway development proposal
Lack of road infrastructure. Small narrow unable to cope with more traffic. Further traffic hazardous to young and elderly in village. Poor bus service - unsuitable.
Health - Doctors busy, over subscribed. No local NHS dentist. No space for NHS patients anywhere.
Community Hall is a key community meeting point holding activities and events.
Playground essential for young families
Sports field holds fund raising activities, cycling events, Redgrave football.
No pre school, primary or high school.
A large development would would have a huge negative impact on a beautiful village.

More details about Rep ID: 2511

Representation ID: 2437

OBJECT mrs sandra stanley

Summary:

Strongly object to development of this amenity area:
Redgrave village would be deprived of an extensively used area for recreational/social needs of the community.
Redgrave village is recognised for its character/natural beauty. The scale of the development would be of great detriment
Churchway is narrow & winding which isn't suitable or safe for increased traffic. The footpaths attract walkers/ramblers. With no pavements along Churchway those on foot would be at risk with increased traffic. The safety of all those using the road should be paramount.
Increased traffic would affect local roads/villages
Local facilities (Health/Schools/Drainage/Sewerage) under strain. Limited Bus Service

More details about Rep ID: 2437

Representation ID: 2274

OBJECT Mr Michael Stanley

Summary:

The land in question is a local amenity used by all the village including a football team cricket team and lots of village clubs, on this land there is also the village meeting hall and children's play area which has just been refurbished at great cost, this parcel of land is also boundaries a conservation area and as such would be totally inappropriate to develop.
The only access to a development is Churchway which is a narrow single lane country road, which as there are NO amenities in Redgrave all residents would have to drive down causing congestion.

More details about Rep ID: 2274

Representation ID: 2114

OBJECT Ann Preston

Summary:

I completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole Potential Development Site SS0486:
1. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
2. Total loss of amenity land
3. Great strain on local drainage, health, schooling and electricity infrastructure
4. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
5. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
6. Village facilities are very limited so that a large number of new residents would make daily car journeys to Botesdale/Rickinghall resulting in major increases in traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 2114

Representation ID: 2113

OBJECT Norfolk FA (Mr Ian Grange)

Summary:

Having digested the information within the Local Plan Consultation document I note plans have been submitted linked to Redgrave to develop the green space on the land south of Churchway.

This recreational space is currently utilised by Redgrave Rangers FC who are a well-established community group.

Within the proposed plans submitted there no alternative green space provided for the village and to relocate the football club, therefore the future of Redgrave Rangers would be placed in danger given there is no other existing green space in the village that they could relocate to.

Norfolk FA object to this proposed development.

More details about Rep ID: 2113

Representation ID: 1621

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: 1621

Representation ID: 1355

OBJECT Mr Stephen Eason

Summary:

Since 1984 the number of houses in Redgrave has increased from about 110 to over 200, an increase of 82%. We therefore feel that Redgrave is already 'doing its bit' to cater for the increased local population. SS0486 would double the current settlement size, leading to a gross and disproportionate increase in population.

Development of SS0486 would deprive the village of the only available play and sports facilities (along with the village hall) and would therefore be contrary to one of the aims of the Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 1355

Representation ID: 1321

OBJECT Mr & Mrs M J Blandford

Summary:

1. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
2. Total loss of amenity land
3. Great strain on local drainage, health, schooling and electricity infrastructure
4. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
5. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
6. Village facilities are very limited so that a large number of new residents would make daily car journeys to Botesdale/Rickinghall resulting in major increases in traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 1321

Representation ID: 1279

OBJECT Central & South Norfolk League (Mr John Turner)

Summary:

It has been drawn to our attention that the ground at Church Way where Redgrave Rangers FC club currently plays has been earmarked for future housing development with no suggestion of an alternative facility being provided.

This proposal appears to be contrary to the statutory rights for consulting Sport England on such proposals.

Development would severely jeopardise the future of a well established club and further contribute to the overall decline of adult football in this area. This appears to be contrary to Government policy in terms of encouraging participation in sporting activities.

For these reasons, the League is opposed to this proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 1279

Representation ID: 1206

OBJECT J Cobb

Summary:

1. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
2. Total loss of amenity land
3. Great strain on local drainage, health, schooling and electricity infrastructure
4. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
5. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
6. Village facilities are very limited so that a large number of new residents would make daily car journeys to Botesdale/Rickinghall resulting in major increases in traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 1206

Representation ID: 982

OBJECT John & Jacqueline Campbell

Summary:

1. There would be a total loss of amenity land
2. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
3. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
4. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
5. Village facilities are very limited so that a large number of new residents would make daily car journeys to Botesdale/Rickinghall resulting in major increases in traffic.
6. Great strain on the local drainage and electricity infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 982

Representation ID: 963

OBJECT J.C. Lamb

Summary:

Object to site SS0486:
a) Total loss of amenity land in Redgrave
b) Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
c) Large number of new residents would make daily car journeys to Botesdale/Rickinghall or Diss resulting in major increases in traffic through the village
d) No assessment of this or the impact on school/health centre 2.5 miles away
e) It would place great strain on local drainage and electricity infrastructure
f) Part of the site is prime agricultural land in the countryside and part of unspoilt views towards the Grade 1 listed medieval church

More details about Rep ID: 963

Representation ID: 891

OBJECT K J & J V Green

Summary:

1. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
2. Total loss of amenity land in Redgrave
3. Great strain on the local drainage, health, schooling and electricity infrastructure
4. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
5. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
6. Village amenities are very limited meaning that new residents would make daily car journeys increasing traffic through the village

More details about Rep ID: 891

Representation ID: 766

OBJECT Mr & Mrs F Gillett

Summary:

1. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
2. Total loss of amenity land in Redgrave
3. Great strain on the local drainage, health, schooling and electricity infrastructure
4. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
5. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
6. Village amenities are very limited meaning that new residents would make daily car journeys increasing traffic through the village

More details about Rep ID: 766

Representation ID: 751

OBJECT Catriona & Brian Andrews

Summary:

The site contains village open space, sports field, young peoples play area and a village hall. We are concerned that there is potential for the village to lose important community resources. We would hope that any development would support and retain these functions or enhance them.

Access to Diss and mainline trains would be attractive to working families. However we know that rural areas can be challenging for young adults if they do not have access to places to gather and join in positive activites and it is easy to forget their needs.

More details about Rep ID: 751

Representation ID: 748

OBJECT David Lowe

Summary:

Redgrave has limited facilities, no school, a tiny community shop, very limited buses, and the community is trying to buy the pub to avoid losing it. Nearest school/health centre is 2 miles away with limited capacity.
Scale of development has to be controlled and style of dwellings to fit in with the size, character, access and facilities of the village. Infill is better than greenfield. There would be a total loss of amenity land in Redgrave. Scale of development would overwhelm local facilities destroying the heart and character of the village. Eastermost field is prime agricultural land and part of the unspoilt views towards the Grade 1 listed medieval church.

More details about Rep ID: 748

Representation ID: 642

OBJECT Kevin Collins

Summary:

I completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole of the site because:
1. Total loss of amenity land in Redgrave
2. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
3. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
4. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
5. Village amenities are very limited meaning that new residents would make daily car journeys increasing traffic through the village
6. Development would put great strain on local drainage and electricity infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 642

Representation ID: 639

OBJECT Patricia & Mervyn Cater

Summary:

I completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole of the site because:
a. Total loss of amenity land in Redgrave
b. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
c. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
d. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
e. Village amenities are very limited meaning that new residents would make daily car journeys increasing traffic through the village
f. Development would put great strain on local drainage and electricity infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 639

Representation ID: 632

OBJECT S.J. & J.E. Ball

Summary:

We thoroughly disagree with this plan as it would destroy the only recreational space in the village. This facility contains the village hall, sports field, young peoples play area and parking spaces. Surely, if only a few houses were built then this facility would be needed even more and possibly enlarged and not destroyed. We were shocked that the Councils would suggest such an illogical plan that adversely affects the welfare of the people they should look after. It is also obvious that even a few extra houses in a small village puts a strain on facilities and infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 632

Representation ID: 625

OBJECT Annie Blair

Summary:

I completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole of the site because:
1. Total loss of amenity land in Redgrave
2. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
3. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
4. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
5. Village amenities are very limited meaning that new residents would make daily car journeys increasing traffic through the village
6. Development would put great strain on local drainage and electricity infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 625

Representation ID: 573

OBJECT Janet & Rainer McGill

Summary:

It seems that the proposal is to build on land that is currently used as a football pitch, a children's playground and village hall. The area of land adjacent to this recreational area is also earmarked for development but this is beautiful countryside leading across to the stunning medieval church in the distance.

Please do not allow a perfect English village to be destroyed by doubling the population. The main street through the village is not wide - it could not take more cars from further housing development. The services could also not sustain a large quantity of new housing. The doctor's practice is full to capacity as is the school.

More details about Rep ID: 573

Representation ID: 572

OBJECT Christine Giddings

Summary:

Disagree with the inclusion of SS0486:
The proposal would more than double the size of the village, not forgetting other land currently under consideration for development. The roads, essential infrastructure and local facilities would be overwhelmed by such an increase.
The proposal would remove the only community recreational land in the village, including the village hall.
Church Way would not safely accommodate the increase in traffic. Similarly, the B1113 through the village is already heavily used and could not accommodate the increase.
Local facilities such as the Doctor's Surgery and Primary School in Botesdale are already over capacity.

More details about Rep ID: 572

Representation ID: 571

OBJECT Mr John Giddings

Summary:

I completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole of the site because:
1. Total loss of amenity land in Redgrave
2. Scale of such a development would more than double the number of homes in the village overwhelm local/village facilities
3. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
4. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic at busy times
5. Village amenities are very limited meaning that new residents would make daily car journeys increasing traffic through the village
6. Development would put great strain on local drainage and electricity infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 571

Representation ID: 433

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Graham & Helen Kayley

Summary:

We completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole Potential Development Site SS0486 in the Joint Local Plan consultation because:
1. Scale of development would more than double or potentially treble the number of homes in the village, overwhelming local and village facilities
2. Total loss of amenity land
3. Great strain on local drainage, sewage, health, schooling and electricity infrastructure
4. Access is via narrow village lane, joining the main village in the middle of a conservation area
5. Local schools and health centre is 2.5 miles away increasing traffic alarmingly
6. Village amenities are very limited meaning that new residents would make daily car journeys to Botesdale/Rickinghall or Diss resulting in increased traffic through the village

More details about Rep ID: 433

Representation ID: 385

OBJECT Ms Fiona Kenworthy

Summary:

There is no school in Redgrave, and no post office. There is only one tiny community shop with limited opening hours. One pub, which is currently for sale. Bus service is extremely limited. There is already a problem with drainage in the village. Without the Amenities Centre, there would be nowhere in Redgrave to use as a village hall/social hub which would have a very detrimental effect upon the cohesiveness of the community. The proposed development area in question is accessed via a narrow winding lane, which is not suitable for a housing development.

More details about Rep ID: 385

Representation ID: 379

OBJECT Mr James McCluskey and 1 other

Summary:

We completely disagree with the inclusion of the whole potential development site SS0486 in the Joint Local Plan Consultation.

The sports field and amenities centre are the only recreational facilities (the pub may not survive) that we have, and further development eastwards would put a severe strain on our services.

I/we would strongly recommend a visit from you to view the area and see the problems for yourselves. Close, or even on the A143 would make more sense.

More details about Rep ID: 379

Representation ID: 161

OBJECT Redgrave Amenities Trust (Mr Julian van Beveren)

Summary:

13 acre field is the Redgrave Activities Centre which has been in existence for 20 years and is leased by the Redgrave Amenities Trust on behalf of the village community. It is the only children's play area, teenage meeting place, open space, recreational area, sports field, picnic area and off road parking. A range of activities take place in the village hall and it is an important meeting place. Relocation is not an option. Other sites available in Redgrave and Mid Suffolk.

Proposal would be contrary to NPPF 2012.

More details about Rep ID: 161

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

Powered by OpusConsult