Q5 (p13)

Protecting the rural environment

The Sudbury Western Relief Road

Local infrastructure improved to deal with local development already approved. Any development should not swamp the local area and should as far as possible blend in. Where possible industrial development should be kept away from residential areas.

Employment within a sensible and sustainable commute.

RPC considers it essential that local views are adequately reflected in the decisions taken at District level.

I am a local resident of the village of Drinkstone in Mid Suffolk District Councils area. Whilst I understand that Drinkstone Parish Council are likely to respond to your consultation document direct, I would like personally to make the following comments / observations, regarding the above;

Whilst my wife and I have only been a residents in Drinkstone for 6 months, my wife and I were residents in Woolpit for over 23 Years and we personally do not want to see Drinkstone being ruined by ad-hoc housing developments, similar to those agreed for Woolpit.

Public transport, local amenities and the road infrastructure within Drinkstone are not suitably geared up for an increase in housing stock without significant investment in such matters. More importantly by the council focusing on housing stock numbers, etc. there is a severe risk of ruining the picturesque nature of our village, similar to what has happened and continues to happen in Woolpit.

My specific comments on your consultation document are;

Q1 What do you think the vision should be? and Q2 Do you agree with the identified objectives?
* The current statement does not give adequate clarity for me to properly assess what the impact will be on Drinkstone. Apart from the objective of building more houses, there is little in the vision statement that demonstrates any innovative thinking on key issues in proposed policy addressing the economy, environment and infrastructure. As a result there is a serious risk that the pressures of the need for more housing stock, will result in the council ignoring totally environmental, infrastructure and conservation matters to the detriment of the whole village.

Q3 Are there other objectives which should be added?
* Infrastructure upgrades should precede the granting of large scale planning permissions.
* For smaller housing developments there should be a more rigorous assessment of the cumulative impact on the existing infrastructure before permission is granted, and improvements should be made before any development begins where they are deemed necessary.

Q5 What is most important for your town or village?
The basic infrastructure should be improved before any further development is considered in the Drinkstone area. The key areas of concern regarding infrastructure are;
* Poor secondary road infrastructure
* The village does not have access to gas and therefore to continue to allow development a housing stock with oil (environmentally damaging) will not fulfil the requirements of the councils environmental strategy
* No local amenities

Q11 Do you agree with the proposed criteria approach to rank settlements? & Q12 Do you agree with proposed settlement hierarchy?
* There appears to be factual errors in the scoring. Our village (Drinkstone) is 8 miles from a town, not 3 and the main settlement is 2.5 miles from a core village, not 1.5.
* The hinterland village category is too large and should be broken down further to distinguish those villages scoring low on the hinterland scale.

Q15 If a new settlement was to be planned in the area, where should it be located?
* It is likely that a significant proportion of any new residents will want to commute to work, most likely out of the local area, so any new settlements should be located close to a major roads with ideally good and close access to the rail network.

Q 64 What do you consider the key infrastructure issues in your community?
* Inadequate public transport and road infrastructure, means that the infrastructure around and in Drinkstone will not be able to cope with any increase in road traffic. The village also currently does not have any local amenities and therefore this must be fully recognised by the council and taken into due consideration, prior to allowing any increase in housing stock in the village.

To conclude we need to be mindful of what has detrimentally happened and continues to happen to Woolpit and this should not be allowed to happen to Drinkstone. Drinkstone and its villagers have a strong sense of camaraderie and without the appropriate controls in place, which I do not see in the current consultation document, there is a high risk of Drinkstone becoming just another suburb of Bury St Edmunds and I for one, do not want to see this happen.

See attachment

Elmswell will require a relief road in the very near future, especially if the plans to increase freight traffic come to fruition.

Small amount of housing growth and improved infrastructure.

housing to attract younger people, services especially transport and broadband, some retail to reduce car journeys.

The need to balance housing development with appropriate infrastructure development to support sustainable development goals.

To maintain the current tranquil and sedate pace of life in Raydon.
There is a strong need to support the growth of the village in a manner which protects the nature of the village whilst allowing more people to benefit from the location and amenities. This will provide financial and people support to the facilities within the village eg village hall. It will also bring new blood to the village noting the age profile demographic. It will also make the infrastructure links such as bus service more viable if there are more users of the service.

No light or fuel pollution, beautiful countryside and wildlife and clean air to breath.

Keeping the rural nature of Haughley Parish, protecting its heritage, managing the traffic, having high speed broadband throughout Haughley, Haughley Green and Haughley New Street

Keeping the rural nature of Haughley Parish and protecting its heritage. Traffic management and high speed broadband.

Palgrave must remain a village.
To preserve a green buffer zone, to assure separation from neighbouring villages, and prevent Stuston and Diss encroachment
To maintain the village's rural character, protect special green spaces and important
countryside views

The basic infrastructure should be improved before any further development is considered.
Size and scale of future development must be in keeping with this "secondary" village character;
Footpaths and green spaces should be preserved and improved.
Concerns about increased traffic, and inadequate parking on our minor roads.

Drinkstone does not have the infrastructure in place to justify its scoring as a hinterland village. The pressing needs are better broadband coverage - some parts of the village do not have a useable broadband facility. The sewage and drainage infrastructure is only just coping with the current number of houses and needs to be upgraded before permission is granted for any additional houses. There is a shortage of smaller properties in the village and a better mix of housing stock should be encouraged.

To protect and enhance environmental assets.

Removing through traffic (rat running between the A143 and A1066 or avoiding the congested A1066 through Diss) from the centre of Palgrave, to improve the quality of life for and the safety of residents.

To support the future of the village by providing employment opportunities whilst protecting the environment and the local heritage.

Basic infrastructure should be improved - access to broadband and upgrades to the sewage system and road network
The scale of any development takes into account the lack of amenities and poor infrastructure in the village
Clarity on the amount of development permitted on windfall sites. The cumulative effect of piecemeal development should be a material consideration in assessing applications for new housing.
There should be a cap on the number of windfall developments in any community dependent on the amenities and infrastructure present.
In a village with no mains gas, developers should be required to build energy efficient houses,

Maintain identity and the means to support our infrastructure in a realistic fashion.

Any development must be supported by infrastructure improvements, not just added on to our boundary. All local services must be able to cope with any growth, and housing should reflect the needs of our community, especially older residents.

Our village is Fressingfield in the most northern part of the MSDC district and happens to be one of the most rural parts of the region creating very specific and significant problems. These include:
Village identity. To allow the village to grow gradually, sustainably and whilst retaining its character
Sustainable, appropriate housing development.
Appropriate housing. The needs of an aging population and young first time buyers has to be addressed
Improving infrastructure - modern communications (better broadband), utilities.
Education - sufficient capacity within our local schools
Health. Recognize the need to grow healthcare adequately in proportion with village growth.
Public transport - improving the quality in the more rural areas and greater frequency.
Highways. Better roads to accommodate increased quantity of traffic.
Employment. Recognizing that appropriate local business development is essential to village viability.
Environment. Managing the area sensitively but robustly to maintain our heritage and landscape.
Safety of residents both from increased traffic together with increased policing.

Chelmondiston area: Most important is protecting the village as a rural settlement. Numbers of additional dwellings should be appropriate to a hinterland parish (i.e. sufficient to meet local needs). The Shotley Peninsula has carried more than its fair share of recent development and basic infrastructure should be improved prior to any further developments.

See attachment

Lindsey Parish Council has an expressed aim of ensuring development in Lindsey provides for regeneration and sustainability for the village. It must be incremental and in character with existing.

Infrastructure.

There is already an infrastructure deficit in Copdock and Washbrook. There is only one route from the village into Ipswich, Swan Hill, and this is a small country lane that is already congested.

The A12 is constantly snarled up as a result of the inadequacies of the Copdock Mill junction leading to overflow traffic from the A12 to further congest Swan Hill in an effort to avoid the traffic at the junction.

Bear in mind that there is also consultation on further development in Sproughton that will also lead to more congestion as those developments will all lead to more traffic at the point of convergence, The Beagle roundabout.

Constable Country Surgery is already struggling to meet local demand, leading to unsatisfactory feedback from patients.

The school is already full.

There are no amenity shops in the village capable of servicing the proposed new housing developments.

To keep it a village, maintaining its individuality and identity and not develop it into yet another housing estate.

Having regard to the character, spread of the built up area boundaries and settlements. Further, to consider the modest growth in development and employment, taking cognizance of the Cockfield local survey lodged with Babergh District Council.