Policy SP04 - Housing Spatial Distribution

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 217

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16212

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Bentley Parish Council

Representation:

The proposed allocation of additional housing for Bentley is 52 which represents an increase of 16% over current stock, whereas the indicative proposed increase for a Hinterland Village is 10%. This would represent comparative over-development for the village and would be regarded as excessive and impact on the rural character of the village.

Full text:

See attached letter.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16221

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Matthew March

Representation:

Woolverstone - I am profoundly concerned at the totally disproportionate target for the house building in what the authority has now, correctly, designated a hamlet. Thirty one houses will increase the size of the village by approaching thirty percent.

Full text:

Having read the Plan in its entirety with particular reference to my village of Woolverstone I would like to make the following comments.
Firstly the redrawing of the boundary to put it to the north of the Walled Garden makes no strategic sense, other than to encourage further development in what is a quite beautiful place, part of our irreplaceable national heritage. Our local authority needs to treasure this asset rather than bringing into play for development.

Secondly, I am profoundly concerned at the totally disproportionate target for house building in what the authority has now, correctly, designated a hamlet. Thirty one houses will increase the size of the village by approaching thirty percent. This in a place which lacks every facility other than a church.

The Strategic Plan makes considerable play of the over arching infrastructure. The Shotley Peninsula is already creaking under the pressure of a single, twisty road. The planned Ganges development and that proposed for Chelmondiston will bring perhaps a further 700 vehicles onto this road. Alongside this, the local schools are already overflowing and the medical facilities are currently struggling to cope.

I freely accept that development needs to happen in the face of a growing population, and of generational changes in our society but there are surely other parts of the district with superior infrastructure where development would be more feasible than the relatively remote Shotley Peninsula. This is not nimbyism but a dispassionate and considered response to the document which in laying out its parameters seems to accept that development should take place in parts of the district with the infrastructure to cope.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16225

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Patricia March

Representation:

Woolverstone - I am profoundly concerned at the totally disproportionate target for house building in what the authority has now, correctly, designated a hamlet. Thirty one houses will increase the size of the village by approaching thirty percent.

Full text:

Having read the Plan in its entirety with particular reference to my village of Woolverstone I would like to make the following comments.

Firstly the redrawing of the boundary to put it to the north of the Walled Garden makes no strategic sense, other than to encourage further development in what is a quite beautiful place, part of our irreplaceable national heritage. Our local authority needs to treasure this asset rather than bringing into play for development.

Secondly, I am profoundly concerned at the totally disproportionate target for house building in what the authority has now, correctly, designated a hamlet. Thirty one houses will increase the size of the village by approaching thirty percent. This in a place which lacks every facility other than a church.

The Strategic Plan makes considerable play of the over arching infrastructure. The Shotley Peninsula is already creaking under the pressure of a single, twisty road. The planned Ganges development and that proposed for Chelmondiston will bring perhaps a further 700 vehicles onto this road. Alongside this, the local schools are already overflowing and the medical facilities are currently struggling to cope.

I freely accept that development needs to happen in the face of a growing population, and of generational changes in our society but there are surely other parts of the district with superior infrastructure where development would be more feasible than the relatively remote Shotley Peninsula. This is not nimbyism but a dispassionate and considered response to the document which in laying out its parameters seems to accept that development should take place in parts of the district with the infrastructure to cope.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16266

Received: 12/08/2019

Respondent: Professor Robert Turner & Mrs J.M. Turner

Representation:

Nowhere is there any detailed account in the JLP of the efforts, if any, made by the Council to identify suitable “brown field” land suitable for building houses in Woolpit or in the whole of the Mid Suffolk District. The Campaign to Protection Rural England predicts that brownfield sites could overall provide land for up to a million new homes a year.
Developers do not want to develop “brown field” sites as it costs them more in initial outlay and thus eats into their profits. It is far easier to plough up virgin grade 3 agricultural land than to clear a brown field site of its former use

Full text:

Please see attached local plan reponse

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16316

Received: 21/08/2019

Respondent: PYE Charitable settlement

Agent: Sworders

Representation:

Makes provision for a total of 4,689 new homes in the Ipswich Fringe, Market Towns and Urban Areas, Core Villages and hinterland villages. However, provision is only made for 118 new homes in hamlet villages, as a windfall allowance, with no sites for these homes being allocated in the Local Plan.
The planned spatial distribution of housing set out in Policy SP04 is unsound because it ignores the potential of 87 hamlet villages to accommodate small scale, appropriate growth, which cumulatively could make a significant contribution to the District’s housing needs.
it is strongly recommended that the Councils review the proposed spatial strategy, and allocate small sites for development in hamlet villages such as Haughley Green.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16526

Received: 11/09/2019

Respondent: Lindsey Parish Council

Representation:

Supports the principle that the main focus for development for the Babergh and Mid Suffolk areas will be the Ipswich Fringe settlements, Market Towns/Urban Areas and Core Villages. The Parish Council acknowledges the broad distribution of new additional housing provision for the period April 2018 to March 2036 as identified under Policy SP04 and supports the preferred approach for the spatial distribution of housing to be concentrated along the transport corridors of the A12, A14 and railway lines and on key sites in the Ipswich Fringe Area.

Full text:

Please see attached document.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16540

Received: 13/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Christopher White

Representation:

Policy SP01 quotes Babergh will seek to deliver a minimum of 7,560 additional dwellings. Policy SP04 for Babergh shows a new housing provision of 9343 - a 23% increase with no apparent explanation or justification.
Except perhaps the "buffer of approximately 20% in the supply of land for new housing up to 2036" mentioned in para 06.07.
To increase the additional housing numbers to include (exceed?) this buffer could result in Settlements being forced to accept unnecessary housing allocations.

Full text:

Policy SP01 quotes Babergh will seek to deliver a minimum of 7,560 additional dwellings. Policy SP04 for Babergh shows a new housing provision of 9343 - a 23% increase with no apparent explanation or justification.
Except perhaps the "buffer of approximately 20% in the supply of land for new housing up to 2036" mentioned in para 06.07.
To increase the additional housing numbers to include (exceed?) this buffer could result in Settlements being forced to accept unnecessary housing allocations.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16574

Received: 13/09/2019

Respondent: Bentley Neighbourhood Plan Team

Representation:

12 hinterland villages with Neighbourhood Plans in various stages of production which have been allocated 663 houses (average of 55 per village). A total minimum housing requirement of 894 is stated within the Plan. Hinterland villages without a neighbourhood plan have been asked to find a total of 131 houses (average of 9 each). We think it is invidious that hinterland villages that are prepared to put in considerable community effort have been punitively and disproportionately burdened. 46% of homes allocated to villages with Neighbourhood Plans are in Copdock & Washbrook, Capel St Mary, East Bergholt and Bentley. All these villages use Constable Country medical practice, which is already struggling.

Full text:

Please see attached document for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16589

Received: 13/09/2019

Respondent: Drinkstone Parish Council

Representation:

Given that this is a 20-year plan, why has the development of a new settlement been discounted due to "long lead in time"? This reinforces the impression that this plan is a reaction to short term Government pressure, NOT a blueprint for the next 20 years.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16612

Received: 16/09/2019

Respondent: Stowupland Parish Council

Representation:

Policy SP04 mentions a new settlement that has been discounted by MSDC as not deliverable in this joint local plan timescale we feel that we should support the idea of a new town being built as an extension to the Ipswich Fringe bearing in mind the new Ipswich Northern bypass route.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16636

Received: 16/09/2019

Respondent: Capel St Mary Parish Council

Representation:

We would encourage a larger percentage of new homes to be in hinterland villages and hamlets to assist the organic growth of these communities and to support local services.
The housing allocation to Capel St Mary is disproportionatly large being 10.5% of the overall district figure.

Full text:

We would encourage a larger percentage of new homes to be in hinterland villages and hamlets to assist the organic growth of these communities and to support local services.
The housing allocation to Capel St Mary is disproportionatly large being 10.5% of the overall district figure.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16726

Received: 18/09/2019

Respondent: Rattlesden Parish Council

Representation:

Rattlesden Parish Council accepts that the focus of development should be Market Towns, Urban Areas and Core Villages. Parish Council recognises that some new housing will be needed in Hinterland Villages but future development should be limited. Any such developments should not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the existing properties, minimise the impact on the rural heritage of Suffolk villages and should not consolidate settlements or result in ribbon development.

Full text:

Please see attached document for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16754

Received: 18/09/2019

Respondent: Christina Galvin

Representation:

I think a new settlement approach should be considered - to build something with a proper design and infrastructure rather than overloading and ruining existing villages already lacking in some areas re roads/doctors/schools/transport links etc. This was done previously with the 'garden cities' post war. Maybe north of Ipswich could be a look location if we get the badly needed Northern Bypass.

Full text:

I think a new settlement approach should be considered - to build something with a proper design and infrastructure rather than overloading and ruining existing villages already lacking in some areas re roads/doctors/schools/transport links etc. This was done previously with the 'garden cities' post war. Maybe north of Ipswich could be a look location if we get the badly needed Northern Bypass.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16763

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Thurston Parish Council

Representation:

The Parish Council challenges the minimum growth figure for Thurston as being flawed as it has failed to consider the very recent growth rate in Thurston and has failed to consider new ‘windfall’ development that has been allowed since 2017.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16809

Received: 20/09/2019

Respondent: Great Waldingfield Parish Council

Representation:

Good happy with the settlement figures for Great Waldingfield.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16848

Received: 20/09/2019

Respondent: Great Waldingfield Parish Council

Representation:

Why is the number of houses for Chilton only 130? What about the Chilton Woods Development of 1150?

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16930

Received: 20/09/2019

Respondent: East Bergholt Parish Council

Representation:

Disproportionately focussed to the east of the District, where landscape, AONB and protected environments are most evident. Some market towns and core villages in the west of the District do not appear to be contributing.
Assumption for windfall rates need to be justified. Historic rates are 150pa, using 28pa without clear justification renders the expressed requirement from allocated sites open to serious question.
Uneven burden on Core Villages, more should be allocated in Ipswich Fringe and Market Towns. Only 2 Core Villages are expected to take significant growth - Capel and East Bergholt. Market Towns, Urban Areas and Ipswich fringe should be further prioritised, not least since the growth corridor strategy is flawed.

Full text:

Please see attached document for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16932

Received: 20/09/2019

Respondent: East Bergholt Parish Council

Representation:

Appears minimum housing requirement for NP areas are all supply led. No attention to housing requirements at settlement level, or how over or under development would impact on a settlement. CAS housing need survey showed a need for 40 new homes over the next 10 years, why does the plan state a minimum of 241 dwellings?

Full text:

Please see attached document for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16951

Received: 22/09/2019

Respondent: Dedham Vale Society

Representation:

We consider the allocation of housing to Core Villages in the table on page 39 is unduly heavy, no doubt skewed by the gross allocation to East Bergholt. Judging from the proposed allocation to Stoke by Nayland we very much doubt if sufficient account has been taken of the assessed genuinely local requirement. In the case of this village, and for Nayland as well, such housing as is proposed is almost all substantial dwellings to be built by private developers which will be beyond the financial reach of ordinary villagers. No mention of "affordable" homes, let alone ones who do not have "right to buy"

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16974

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Mansel

Representation:

There does not appear to be a 'plan-led' approach to housing delivery.

Full text:

There is disproportionate amount of development is some villages, and much of it is purely reactive to existing planning permissions which were granted when the council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. This is not a 'plan-led' approach to housing delivery. Take Thurston for example - which is listed as taking almost 1500 new homes (12.5% of the total for MSDC), and taken with the other proposed numbers for Woolpit and Elmswell, the western end of the A14 corridor in Mid Suffolk is allocated about £3,000 new homes. These three core villages are taking over half the total number for Core Villages, and about the same as the Market Towns. Infrastructure needs to planned alongside the housing development and yet the infrastructure does not appear to be in the right places.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17006

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Weybread Parish Council

Representation:

Every community deserves to have a chance of some measured growth to enable them to thrive. 5 small Parishes offering 20 dwellings each is 100 dwellings towards the total required.

Returning to the Consultation Document, the map on page 43 clearly shows the Council’s priorities within Mid-Suffolk. There is a small area within the Ipswich catchment and the area called the A14 Corridor. Mention is made of the Eye industrial site and the Parishes of Mendlesham and Woolpit but no significant importance is placed on the communities, like Weybread, which lie to the north of the district.

Full text:

The following are comments made by Weybread Parish Council regarding the Consultation Document on the Preferred Options of Babergh & Mid-Suffolk’s Joint Local Plan dated July 2019 and we request that these comments are given due consideration when finalising the finished document.

Both Mid-Suffolk and Babergh consist of mainly rural areas with varying sized villages surrounded by open countryside. We believe that this Policy Document doesn’t take this into account and in fact causes the north of the district considerable harm.

Although the draft document states:-

“Healthy Communities and Infrastructure – To enable all communities to thrive, grow, be healthy, active and self-sufficient through supporting the provision of the necessary infrastructure” - Page 10, 03 Vision and Objectives
and
“Policy Background and Explanation – Each category of settlements will be required to contribute towards the future growth of the districts” - Page 30, 08 Settlement Hierarchy

We don’t believe that this document represents these views.

Studying the Mid-Suffolk District Council Place Maps – pages 277 to 459, there are only three parishes within the northern area displaying any dwelling allocation – Botesdale & Rickinghall, Eye and Stradbroke. We believe that this proves that no weight has been given to the two statements quoted above. Every community deserves to have a chance of some measured growth to enable them to thrive. 5 small Parishes offering 20 dwellings each is 100 dwellings towards the total required. This situation has been made worse by previous policies which also refused to recognise the importance of each community within Mid-Suffolk.

Weybread Parish Council strongly requests that the two quoted comments from page 10 and page 30 are acted upon and for those communities, who wish it, be allowed to play their part in helping with the District’s land supply.

Weybread Parish Council feel very strongly that the criteria used to categorise each Parish is fundamentally flawed. Not every community can have a sustainable school, shop, sports centre, Library and Doctor’s Surgery, but those that do, rely heavily on their neighbouring parishes to keep them sustainable. If no measured growth is allowed within the surrounding smaller Parishes, it will have a detrimental effect upon the slightly larger Parishes and their facilities.

The Parish of Weybread lies on the northern border of Mid-Suffolk and is situated 2.5 miles from the Norfolk market town of Harleston with a thriving array of shops and ready access to public transport routes. However, this isn’t taken into account when assessing Weybread’s classification. In addition, Weybread Parish Council believes that the numbers employed within a Parish should be taken into account when assessing housing need. A few years ago, Weybread Parish Council carried out a survey for their District Councillor on actual numbers employed within the Parish. Although Weybread consists of 189 dwellings with an approximate population of 420, there were 320 people employed within the Parish Boundary. We accept that this will decrease when Cranswick redeploy to the Eye industrial estate, (120 employed at the time of the survey), 200 is still a significant number and should be taken into account.

Although we understand the financial implications for school transport, this cannot be allowed to influence the smaller housing developments. Small rural schools have always relied on a viable catchment area and planning housing growth around each existing school to the detriment of the smaller surrounding Parishes is unsustainable for both communities. The larger ones containing a school will grow too quickly and the smaller surrounding communities will, without an appropriate age mix, become a series of retirement villages. If these smaller rural schools aren’t supported with the appropriate growth and they are forced to close, this will have a significant affect upon the School transport budget as children will need to travel further.

Returning to the Consultation Document, the map on page 43 clearly shows the Council’s priorities within Mid-Suffolk. There is a small area within the Ipswich catchment and the area called the A14 Corridor. Mention is made of the Eye industrial site and the Parishes of Mendlesham and Woolpit but no significant importance is placed on the communities, like Weybread, which lie to the north of the district.

In conclusion, Weybread Parish Council believe that this consultation document, as it stands, will have a devastating impact upon Parishes like Weybread. Instead of including the smaller Parishes and assisting them to thrive, grow, be healthy, active and self-sufficient, this policy will have the opposite effect and discriminate against the smaller communities. This discrimination will undermine all the hardworking parishioners who strive day in and day out to build and support their community, for however strong the community spirit, every community needs to be given the opportunity to introduce new blood. We, as a Parish Council, accept that not every Parish within the District will want to participate, but every single Parish should be given the same opportunities, scaled to the individual size of each Parish.

Signed collectively by Weybread Parish Council

G Gibbs
Mr Graham Gibbs
Chairman Weybread Parish Council

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17033

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Nick Free

Representation:

Unlike the housing need requirement in Policy SP01, the housing distribution figure contained in Policy SP04 increases the requirement to 12,296 homes, an increase of nearly 23%. There is no justification for this.

Full text:

Unlike the housing need requirement in Policy SP01, the housing distribution figure contained in Policy SP04 increases the requirement to 12,296 homes, an increase of nearly 23%. There is no justification for this.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17107

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Wilby Parish Council

Agent: Compass Point Planning

Representation:

Figure given for Wilby is 12. The current commitment for Wilby, according to MSDC figures in the SHELAA July 2019 – page 473, is shown as 7. The site west of Stradbroke Road is shown as potentially accommodating 5 dwellings. In addition there is an outstanding application for 4 further dwellings as a result of a proposed conversion (DC/19/02803). The community expressed preference is for 10 dwellings. The figure of 12 as identified in the emerging JLP is therefore supported overall although how it is made up needs further consideration.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17111

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Wilby Parish Council

Agent: Compass Point Planning

Representation:

No consultation with Wilby NDP Group in allocating sites. District Council should furnish each neighbourhood plan area with an overall figure but leave the details to the NP body to locally determine through its Neighbourhood Plan. District Council should only be making allocations in settlements in the Local Plan in those areas where there is no NP in production.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17127

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Lawshall Parish Council

Agent: Ian Poole

Representation:

Policy SP04 increases the requirement in Babergh to 9,343 homes, an increase of just over 23% over the Standard Methodology calculated need. There appears to be no justification nor explanation for this increase in the Plan.

Full text:

Policy SP04 increases the requirement in Babergh to 9,343 homes, an increase of just over 23% over the Standard Methodology calculated need. There appears to be no justification nor explanation for this increase in the Plan.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17130

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Lawshall Parish Council

Agent: Ian Poole

Representation:

Lawshall Parish Council supports the minimum housing requirement of 28 dwellings proposed for the Lawshall Neighbourhood Plan.

Full text:

Lawshall Parish Council supports the minimum housing requirement of 28 dwellings proposed for the Lawshall Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17153

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Neil & Claire Fuller

Representation:

A recent Housing Needs Survey concluded a total of 87 people need housing compared with the 1600+ houses put forward by this Local Plan. Indicates the allocation is disproportionate to the needs of the community.
The proposed scale of housing development cannot be regarded as sustainable development for the reasons set out above indicating that this fails to meet its own sustainability criteria and the overarching objectives of the Issues and Options report. The Sustainability Appraisal is currently not an adequately realistic assessment of the situation and should not be used to inform allocations without significant revision based on adequate assessment aligning with best practice principles.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17213

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: St Phillips Land Ltd

Agent: Fisher German

Representation:

Whilst the methodology applied could be clearer within the document, the outcome is considered sound.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17238

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Christopher White

Representation:

Within Babergh the 5 Hamlets with Neighbourhood Plans in various stages of production have been allocated 104 houses out of a total minimum housing requirement for Hamlets of 261 stated within the JLP. The remaining 68 Hamlets without a neighbourhood plan have been asked to find a total of 157 houses (average of 2.3 each over 18 years) This means 40% of the required housing has been allocated to just 7% of the Hamlets. Those Hamlets that are prepared to put in considerable community effort to effect a proportionate and sympathetic housing plan are being cynically and unfairly targeted.

Full text:

Within Babergh the 5 Hamlets with Neighbourhood Plans in various stages of production have been allocated 104 houses out of a total minimum housing requirement for Hamlets of 261 stated within the JLP. The remaining 68 Hamlets without a neighbourhood plan have been asked to find a total of 157 houses (average of 2.3 each over 18 years) This means 40% of the required housing has been allocated to just 7% of the Hamlets. Those Hamlets that are prepared to put in considerable community effort to effect a proportionate and sympathetic housing plan are being cynically and unfairly targeted.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17255

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Christopher White

Representation:

The minimum housing requirement figure (table 4) of 16 for Little Waldingfield is excessive and unrealistic given that under Policy SP04 73 Hamlets in Babergh have a total housing provision requirement of 261 i.e. 3.5 houses each. The net total of 116 new homes (discounting OPP's) - 1.6 houses per Hamlet in 18 years is highly likely to be met by windfall (agricultural conversions, single infills etc) alone without the need of any specific allocations to individual hamlets.
Little Waldingfield currently has 9 OPP's which should be considered a more than sufficient total requirement.

Full text:

The minimum housing requirement figure (table 4) of 16 for Little Waldingfield is excessive and unrealistic given that under Policy SP04 73 Hamlets in Babergh have a total housing provision requirement of 261 i.e. 3.5 houses each. The net total of 116 new homes (discounting OPP's) - 1.6 houses per Hamlet in 18 years is highly likely to be met by windfall (agricultural conversions, single infills etc) alone without the need of any specific allocations to individual hamlets.
Little Waldingfield currently has 9 OPP's which should be considered a more than sufficient total requirement.