MM11.

We respectfully request that the Councils take into account the previous acknowledgement that Great Waldingfield was incorrectly classified and is accurately assessed as part of preparation of Local Plan Part 2. We reserve the opportunity to provide further comments on this matter in response to future consultations on the emerging Local Plan Part 2.

Main Modification Reference 11 – Removal of Babergh Settlement Hierarchy
1.1. Within earlier representations submitted to the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation and within relevant Hearing Statement, we highlighted concerns about the supporting evidence base for the Local Plan as submitted for Examination. These concerns specifically related to the settlement hierarchy as proposed within the Submitted Local Plan (Core Document A01).
1.2. In respect of Great Waldingfield, the Submitted Local Plan (Core Document A01) proposed to classify the settlement as a ‘Hinterland Village’ as identified in Table 2 of the Plan. However for the reasons stated within previous representations Great Waldingfield was not appropriately assessed within the Topic Paper: Settlement Hierarchy Review (July 2019).
1.3. Great Waldingfield is a wholly sustainable settlement capable of supporting sustainable and appropriate major residential development. The village has a good range of local services and facilities which include a primary school, post office and convenience store, village hall, public house, church and a regular peak time bus services. It remains our position that Settlement Hierarchy for Babergh should be amended, and Great Waldingfield should be identified as a Core Village.
1.4. As part of the Matter 4 Hearing Session relating to ‘Settlement Hierarchy, Spatial Distribution of Housing and Housing Site Selection Process’, following points made on behalf of our Client, Babergh Council’s Counsel confirmed that Great Waldingfield should be reclassified as a ‘Core Village’. This point was further acknowledged by the Councils in their letter dated 18th November 2021 (Examination Document G08) at paragraph 2.02 which states:
“2.02 The Councils believe it is appropriate to constrain further assessment to the top three tiers of the settlement hierarchy (noting the changes to the hierarchy which were accepted to Great Waldingfield and Stoke by Nayland at the Matter 4 Hearing sessions)…”
1.5. In response, the Inspectors letter dated 9th December 2021 (Examination Document G09) stated:
“…we currently believe that a more fundamental review than your letter proposes is likely to be necessary in respect of the settlement hierarchy, spatial distribution of housing and the housing site selection process in order to determine whether or not these aspects of the plan are sound.” (para 2).
“In particular we believe that the settlement hierarchy review needs to consider all tiers of settlement and the concept/boundary of the Ipswich Fringe, not just core villages, hinterland villages and hamlets…” (para 3.)
Paragraph 10 sets out the Inspectors recommendations of themes for the Local Plan Part 2 which includes: “An up-to-date, robust settlement hierarchy”.
1.6. We respectfully request that the Councils take into account the previous acknowledgement that Great Waldingfield was incorrectly classified and is accurately assessed as part of preparation of Local Plan Part 2. We reserve the opportunity to provide further comments on this matter in response to future consultations on the emerging Local Plan Part 2.