LA086 – Allocation: Land

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 20712

Received: 27/11/2020

Respondent: Elizabeth McGregor

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

The requirement for "accessibility improvements at Thurston Station" has been omitted from this site's compliances.
The station site is a disgrace with its major safety issues, its inevitable increase in use by new home owners, and its crumbling Grade II listed building. It needs all the financial help possible as well as our council's pressure on the railway authorities to improve it.

Change suggested by respondent:

Reinstate "accessibility improvements at Thurston Station" to the compliances for this site.

Full text:

The requirement for "accessibility improvements at Thurston Station" has been omitted from this site's compliances.
The station site is a disgrace with its major safety issues, its inevitable increase in use by new home owners, and its crumbling Grade II listed building. It needs all the financial help possible as well as our council's pressure on the railway authorities to improve it.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 21213

Received: 23/12/2020

Respondent: Thurston Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

This allocation breaks the settlemnet boundary of 2018 and of the approved Thurston NDP - made 2019. Should the site come forward the mitigation measures as outlined below are insufficient as the site will have a significant impact on the amenities used by residents of Thurston (health, library, retail). The proposed Highway Improvements are insufficient in detail.
This site is subject to legal challenge and we have objected on the grounds that it is clearly contrary to the Thurston NDP.

Change suggested by respondent:

The development must also be expected to comply with the following:

Contributions to mitigation measures identified for passenger safety at the Thurston Railway Station;
Contributions to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards library facilities;
Contributions to the satisfaciton of the LPA, towards open space provisions.

Full text:

This allocation breaks the settlemnet boundary of 2018 and of the approved Thurston NDP - made 2019. Should the site come forward the mitigation measures as outlined below are insufficient as the site will have a significant impact on the amenities used by residents of Thurston (health, library, retail). The proposed Highway Improvements are insufficient in detail.
This site is subject to legal challenge and we have objected on the grounds that it is clearly contrary to the Thurston NDP.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 21470

Received: 24/12/2020

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Agent: Mr James Lawson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires Plans to be prepared with the objective of contributing to sustainable development, and shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan makers and infrastructure providers.
Suffolk Constabulary identified the need for additional police facilities provision to mitigate the impact of planned housing & population growth on its baseline Safer Neighbourhood Team resources which are at capacity, & to provide for an appropriate level of community safety, cohesion & policing.
Recognition of the need for additional developer funded police facilities was therefore sought at the Regulation 18 stage of the Plan in September 2019.

Change suggested by respondent:

For the reasons outlined in response to Section 5 above, & in order to fully achieve sustainable development by providing for an appropriate level of community safety, cohesion & policing, the following modification to the Plan is required;
Policy: LA086 – Land South of Heath Road, Thurston
Insert a new paragraph (below healthcare provision) as follows:
“VIII. Contributions, to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.”

Full text:

Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires Plans to be prepared with the objective of contributing to sustainable development, and shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan makers and infrastructure providers.
Suffolk Constabulary identified the need for additional police facilities provision to mitigate the impact of planned housing & population growth on its baseline Safer Neighbourhood Team resources which are at capacity, & to provide for an appropriate level of community safety, cohesion & policing.
Recognition of the need for additional developer funded police facilities was therefore sought at the Regulation 18 stage of the Plan in September 2019.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 21830

Received: 20/01/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth and Roger McGregor

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

The three sites LA086, LA087, and LA089 are unsound without the compliance requirement of "accessibility improvements at Thurston Station". This requirement was included in the June 2019 documents. The station site is a disgrace with its major safety issues, its inevitable increase in use by new home owners, and its crumbling Grade II listed building. It needs all the financial help possible as well as our council's pressure on the railway authorities to improve it.

Change suggested by respondent:

Reinstate the Thurston Station compliance requirement.

Full text:

1 The Thurston Interactive Map is unsound and mis-leading. It needs updating.
It fails to show the two developments already under construction - one of 175 homes under construction by Hopkins to the south of Norton Road and the other of 200 houses under construction by Linden to the north of Norton Road. The map still shows these as open spaces.

2 The allocation of 14% of all new Mid Suffolk homes in Thurston is unsound for one village to accommodate unless our council has plans for large-scale investment in the infrastructure of roads to and from the village, medical facilities, and parklands. There is no evidence of such plans. The number needs to be reduced and relocated closer to jobs and shops.

3 The three sites LA086, LA087, and LA089 are unsound without the compliance requirement of "accessibility improvements at Thurston Station". This requirement was included in the June 2019 documents. The station site is a disgrace with its major safety issues, its inevitable increase in use by new home owners, and its crumbling Grade II listed building. It needs all the financial help possible as well as our council's pressure on the railway authorities to improve it.

4 The Stockhold Green sites at LA118 with 15 dwellings and LA085 with 25 dwellings are unsound because of safety issues for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists and are also unsound because they lie outside the Settlement Boundary line of 2018. The sites lie within a network of narrow lanes where there is also a narrow railway bridge arch. Also Sustrans Cycle Route 51 runs along Church Road. They would have a serious detrimental effect upon a pleasant rural area where walkers and cyclists can enjoy the safety of being mostly vehicle-free.

5 The LA087 site with 250 dwellings is unsound because it lies outside the Settlement Boundary line of 2018 and it creates an unjustified precedent for development south of Thurston. It is also unsound because of unsafe road access to it at Fishwick Corner, Pokeriage Corner, and under the narrow railway bridge in the middle of Thurston. It has been described as performing “poorly” in the sustainability report.

6 At present we do not feel that the views of Thurston residents are being considered which makes some of the JLP unsound.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg19 (interactive) 2020

Representation ID: 22152

Received: 24/12/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

At regulation 18 consultation stage, SCC highlighted that a number of site allocation policies need to contain the following wording, requiring a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The recommended amendment would make these policies effective in addressing flood risks and therefore sound.

Change suggested by respondent:

A flood risk assessment should be carried out to identify suitable mitigation and a deliverable strategy for the disposal of surface water. Where possible development should avoid proportions of the site with predicted or historic flooding.

Full text:

Please see attached full representation from Suffolk County Council.