08 - Settlement Hierarchy

Showing comments and forms 1 to 28 of 28

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16351

Received: 28/08/2019

Respondent: Tattingstone Parish Council

Representation:

Tattingstone Parish Council supports the definition of a hamlet at Tattinstone - White Horse

Full text:

Tattingstone Parish Council supports the definition of a hamlet at Tattingstone - White Horse

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16760

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Thurston Parish Council

Representation:

Thurston Parish Council accepts its status as a Core Village and is supportive of the principle that the scale and location of growth of development will be based upon the role of settlements within the settlement hierarchy as produced within the Draft Joint LDP.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17054

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Keymer Cavendish Limited

Representation:

Allocation for housing should be allowed in Hinterland villages, such as Tostock, in the absence of and urgent need for housing in rural areas as part of the five year supply

Full text:

Allocation for housing should be allowed in Hinterland villages, such as Tostock, in the absence of and urgent need for housing in rural areas as part of the five year supply

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17119

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Raydon Parish Council

Representation:

Raydon Parish Council working group members (Sue Newton, Keith Lovering & Sigi Steer) have reviewed jointly the Joint Local Plan, particularly with regard to the area falling within the Babergh District Council boundaries. We have considered the ‘preferred approaches’ set out in the Plan and confirm that there are no points with which we strongly disagree.

We have also taken care to consider the Settlement Hierarchy Review for Raydon. We can confirm that that the changes we recommended to the 2014 Babergh Core Strategy have now been included and no further items require amendment.

Full text:

Raydon Parish Council working group members (Sue Newton, Keith Lovering & Sigi Steer) have reviewed jointly the Joint Local Plan, particularly with regard to the area falling within the Babergh District Council boundaries. We have considered the ‘preferred approaches’ set out in the Plan and confirm that there are no points with which we strongly disagree.

We have also taken care to consider the Settlement Hierarchy Review for Raydon. We can confirm that that the changes we recommended to the 2014 Babergh Core Strategy have now been included and no further items require amendment.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17260

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Fressingfield Parish Council

Representation:

Fressingfield Parish Council were pleased to see that more attention had been given to the correct designation of our village based on its infrastructure. Previous documents had suggested Fressingfield was a core village but this document correctly designates the village as a hinterland community.

Full text:

Fressingfield Parish Council were pleased to see that more attention had been given to the correct designation of our village based on its infrastructure. Previous documents had suggested Fressingfield was a core village but this document correctly designates the village as a hinterland community.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17307

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Mendlesham Parish Council

Representation:

The link between development being proportionate to services and key infrastructure is noted.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17944

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Frederick Cooke

Representation:

The existing scoring system is flawed and does not allow some small villages to have some development to help keep existing service viable, e.g. Wetherden.
Why is Tostock which has less/similar services allowed to develop.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17965

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr And Mrs Britnell

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

In principle, our clients support the establishment of a settlement hierarchy to direct future growth across the Babergh and Mid Suffolk area.
The use of a scoring system, which relies on awarding points depending upon the level of services available,
appears very crude and overly simplistic. Furthermore, the scoring system did not acknowledge the physical and environmental constraints that exist in some villages
and some form of weighting is required. It is therefore disappointing to note that Settlement Hierarchy Topic Paper, 2019, does not seek to address these deficiencies.

Site LA075 has been identified as having a potential capacity of 50 dwellings whereas the application of a development density of 30 dwellings per hectare would suggest it is closer to 90 dwellings. This is significant in view of pre existing commitments that exist in the locality, such as HMS Ganges, and the limitations of the B1456 road which is the only vehicular access to the village.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18067

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Fleur Homes

Agent: EJW Planning Limited

Representation:

We object to this policy and the methodology used for determining the hierarchy. The Settlement Hierarchy Topic Paper published in July 2019 sets out a points based criteria for determining which village falls within which category within the hierarchy. The points based system is flawed as it is possible to score one or two points for the same facilities in different villages and therefore villages with the same level of facilities (but different scores) can fall within different categories. This is approach is not consistent with the NPPF’s approach to supporting rural communities.

Policy SP03 states that the remainder of the district (that is all areas outside of the hierarchy and outside of settlement boundaries) is designated as countryside and will be protected. It is therefore out of date to the extent that it perpetuates the protection of open countryside for its own sake.

The policy requires refinement to ensure that it is sound, consistent with national policy and positively prepared.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18104

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: The Mager Family

Agent: Evolution Town Planning

Representation:

These representations OBJECT to the Settlement Hierarchy (Table 2) as it identifies Hoxne as two Hinterland Villages, rather than a single village. The result of this is that it under-assesses the settlement’s sustainability credentials. In actual fact the settlement has services and facilities more akin to a Core Village and receives a scoring of 18 in the Matrix in the Settlement Hierarchy Review Topic Paper (July 2019) when assessed as a combined settlement. We recommend that the settlement is reassessed as a single settlement and designated as a Core Village. We would only support the settlement hierarchy if this
revision were made, designating Hoxne as a ‘Core Village’.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18121

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: The Mager Family

Agent: Braiseworth Hall Farm Ltd

Representation:

In general, we support the approach of this policy, since it is consistent with NPPF. However, we are not persuaded that the Local Plan, as currently drafted, has made the
correct decision in defining Hoxne as a ‘Hinterland Village’ rather than a ‘Core Village’.
In the absence of appropriate evidence made available within the Evidence Base (please see attached).

We have reviewed the Core Villages of Walsham-le-Willows and Stonham Aspal and have found that these settlements have a similar range of serves as Hoxne, yet have been identified as Core Villages where as Hoxne is only allocated as a Hinterland Village.

Our own review suggests that an amendment to the settlement hierarchy is justified to elevate Hoxne from a Hinterland Village to a Core Village.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18162

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Tamage Campaign

Representation:

This letter is sent from a group of residents in Acton known as Campaign Tamage who are concerned at the real harm being done to the village by overdevelopment without any infrastructure upgrading.
The hierarchy selection procedure by which the JLP proposes changes to villages' status is full of consistencies in its construction as well as errors in application.
The matrix used is notably deficient and the fact that it is applied as a piece of desktop research only is unacceptable from the results calculated and potential for changes suggested or allowed as a result of adoption of its findings.
(Please see attached evidence for suggested revision of the settlement hierarchy scoring system.)

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18208

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr David Payne

Representation:

Nothing has changed to alter Acton as a Hinterland village except a desk top exercise and a member of your department has ticked boxes without examining the real facts and thereby placing Acton as a Core Village.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18210

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Jane Payne

Representation:

Nothing has changed to alter Acton as a Hinterland village except a desk top exercise and a member of your department has ticked boxes without examining the real facts and thereby placing Acton as a Core Village.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18233

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Spurgeon

Representation:

Nothing has changed to alter Acton as a Hinterland village except a desk top exercise and a member of your department has ticked boxes without examining the real facts and thereby placing Acton as a Core Village.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18409

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: mr Charles Oliver

Representation:

The proposed development plan for Moats Tye actually encompasses most of the dwellings built since the 1950's. I am in favour of a few more dwellings being built to meet paragraph 78 of the NPPF.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18500

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr L Fielden

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation:

The proposed change to the settlement boundary to Onehouse is supported.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18849

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Thorcross Builders Limited

Agent: Springfields Planning and Development Limited

Representation:

15 no. Core Villages are proposed in the JLP for Babergh. This represents a 50% increase in the number of Core Villages in the adopted Core Strategy which has only 10 no. Core Villages. This may have a longer term negative impact on the vitality/viability of existing Core Villages due to more thinly spread housing allocations between them and with some Core Villages being allocated a disproportionately large share relative to each other.

There are inconsistencies in the way the points are applied, including double counting which has the effect of unfairly skewing scores towards particular villages

for example, Holbrook has not been scored correctly. Holbrook Academy is the village’s secondary education offering. However, the scoring matrix provides a ‘0’ score in the Secondary School/Sixth Form/Further Education column. Accordingly, at least an additional point should be awarded to Holbrook bringing its total to 24 points, or 2 points if a secondary school is to scored the same as a primary school (sic), which would make a total of 25 points.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18867

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Hoxne Parish Council

Representation:

Proposed new boundary includes a site with planning permission for four new dwellings. This grant was against the Parish Councils recommendation. It is neither a natural, or indeed sustainable, to extend the existing boundary to include this open space.

"Where settlements of 10 or more well related dwellings which are fronting the public highway, have been identified....." Hoxne has no sites identified /draft allocations for 10 or more dwellings fronting the highway, hence further evidence that the change in this settlement is not necessary.

There cannot be any justification for the extension to this settlement boundary and it should be reinstated as per the 1998 Local Plan map.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18946

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Working Group

Representation:

The description of Sproughton does not clarify or mark the two distinctive areas

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19029

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Parish Council

Representation:

The description of Sproughton does not clarify or mark the two distinctive areas

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19234

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pigeon

Agent: Turley

Representation:

Supports the inclusion of Land on the North
Side of Norton Road, Thurston, within the settlement boundary

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19353

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mr M Poulter

Representation:

The distances to facilities and services measured in the plan should be stated in miles not km. Some of the travel patterns for residents to access employment opportunities would be on C class roads which is not appropriate.

Full text:

See attached full representation

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19394

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr. John Purser

Representation:

Acton has been incorrectly scored as a Core village in the ‘Hierachy’ system. The ability for a Core village to have developments outside the agreed village envelope should not be applied to Acton and the ‘Land South of Tamage Road site’ cannot be zoned for housing unless it has been scored correctly.

Great Waldingfield has also been scored incorrectly and is currently carrying Core village status but is in the Plan as a Hinterland village.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19443

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management

Agent: Turley

Representation:

Pigeon welcomes the approach set out under Policy SP03 and in Tables 2 and 3 of the Joint Local Plan,
In particular Pigeon is supportive of the Council’s approach to define the Ipswich Fringe Area as its own category at the top of the settlement hierarchy

we would suggest that Tables 2 and 3 of the Joint Local Plan are amended and the following Core Villages are identified as falling with the A12/A14 Strategic Transport Corridor:
Thurston, Woolpit, Haughley, Stowupland, Capel St Mary and East Bergholt.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19511

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Dr R Tanna

Agent: Evolution Town Planning

Representation:

We support the change to the settlement boundary marked with a red X on the accompanying plan. This change is justified by the fact that planning permission was recently granted on the site for 9 homes. We attach the recent planning permission and the site layout plan.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19572

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation:

It is clear that Chelmondiston performs significantly better than other Hinterland Villages in relation to the settlement hierarchy. In addition, further consideration should be given to the strategic location of Chelmondiston, particularly in terms of its proximity to the A14 and Ipswich.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19588

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: M Scott Properties Ltd

Agent: Strutt and Parker

Representation:

We are not aware of any consultation on the Settlement Hierarchy Methodology and therefore this appears to be the first opportunity to do so.
We are concerned that the settlement scoring does not reflect the importance of some services over others, in relation to their suitability to support residential or employment development accurately.

The allocation of Claydon as a Core Village and within the Ipswich fringe is recognised and supported. In assessing the Settlement Scoring, we are concerned
that Claydon should score more favourably, given its location.