Chelmondiston

Showing comments 1 to 18 of 18

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16249

Received: 12/08/2019

Respondent: Mr John Thomsett

Representation:

We believe the new joint plan gives the correct interpretation of the needs for Chelmondiston Parish, including the hamlets of Pin Mill and Lings Lane. Maintaining the hinterland village status for Chelmondiston is a positive feature and the protection afforded the ANOB is greatly welcomed.
With the 400+ dwellings already planned for, the Shotley Peninsula’s housing requirements are more than adequately covered for the period of the Plan. There are concerns, already expressed elsewhere regarding the capability of the B1456 to cope, especially at the “pinch” points and the junction with the A137- Wherstead Road.

Full text:

We believe the new joint plan gives the correct interpretation of the needs for Chelmondiston Parish, including the hamlets of Pin Mill and Lings Lane. Maintaining the hinterland village status for Chelmondiston is a positive feature and the protection afforded the ANOB is greatly welcomed.
With the 400+ dwellings already planned for, the Shotley Peninsula’s housing requirements are more than adequately covered for the period of the Plan. There are concerns, already expressed elsewhere regarding the capability of the B1456 to cope, especially at the “pinch” points and the junction with the A137- Wherstead Road.
There could be a safety case for amending the maximum speed limit outwith the villages for the whole of the Peninsula to 40mph to curtail the regular incidents of unsafe overtaking on blind bends.
We would also recommend that no measures are taken to reduce roadside parking on the B1456 through Chelmondiston and Woolverstone as the current arrangements have a traffic calming effect.
In general we are supportive of the new Plan as tabled.
John and Carol Thomsett

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16381

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Ms HILDA RIDGE

Representation:

I support this plan at Chelmondiston as a hinterland village with Lings Lane and Pin Mill both being hamlets and therefore minimal additional housing required and the protection of the AONB areas for refusal of housing which will retain the character of the village and retain the tourism which is so important to the Shotley Pensinsula

Full text:

I support this plan at Chelmondiston as a hinterland village with Lings Lane and Pin Mill both being hamlets and therefore minimal additional housing required and the protection of the AONB areas for refusal of housing which will retain the character of the village and retain the tourism which is so important to the Shotley Pensinsula

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16385

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mr Ian Melville

Representation:

I think it eminently sensible to designate Chelmo a Hinterland village because it helps to protect the AONB ,a National guideline issue, and hopefully stops estate being approved when the road (B1456) so clearly is not capable of carrying more and more traffic at rush hours.

Full text:

I think it eminently sensible to designate Chelmo a Hinterland village because it helps to protect the AONB ,a National guideline issue, and hopefully stops estate being approved when the road (B1456) so clearly is not capable of carrying more and more traffic at rush hours.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16491

Received: 12/09/2019

Respondent: Mr David Newton

Representation:

The status of Chelmondiston and Pin Mill as a single Hinterland Village seems to me to fit very well both in with reference to land use / landscape and socio-culturally. I have lived and worked in this community for over 40 years as its parish priest and in practice totally agree with the designation.

Full text:

The status of Chelmondiston and Pin Mill as a single Hinterland Village seems to me to fit very well both in with reference to land use / landscape and socio-culturally. I have lived and worked in this community for over 40 years as its parish priest and in practice totally agree with the designation.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16493

Received: 12/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Julian Ackland

Representation:

I support the draft plan for Chelmondiston as laid out in the document. In particular I agree with the definition of the village as Hinterland and the intention to protect the AONB

Full text:

I support the draft plan for Chelmondiston as laid out in the document. In particular I agree with the definition of the village as Hinterland and the intention to protect the AONB

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16757

Received: 18/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Renee Waite

Representation:

I support the joint plan as Chelmondiston has been classified as a Hinterland. With minimal employment and a road network difficult to improve Chelmondiston could not cope with large housing estates. The character of the village would be lost. It's role is to provide peace to the many who visit its areas of A.N.O.B, the River Orwell and Pin Mill. An ageing population results in a natural turnover of houses.

Full text:

I support the joint plan as Chelmondiston has been classified as a Hinterland. With minimal employment and a road network difficult to improve Chelmondiston could not cope with large housing estates. The character of the village would be lost. It's role is to provide peace to the many who visit its areas of A.N.O.B, the River Orwell and Pin Mill. An ageing population results in a natural turnover of houses.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17143

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: AONB Team

Representation:

There are a couple of typos which need to be corrected.

Also, the explanatory text for Chelmondiston refers to the Stour and Orwell AONB which does not exist. The text needs be amended to read Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB

Full text:

There are a couple of typos which need to be corrected.

Also, the explanatory text for Chelmondiston refers to the Stour and Orwell AONB which does not exist. The text needs be amended to read Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17250

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Mr David Abbott

Representation:

I support the plan which designates Chelmondiston as a hinterland village together with the neighbouring hamlets of Pin Mill and Lings Lane. The detailed boundaries are respectful of our AONB status thus protecting precious farmland from development.

Full text:

I support the plan which designates Chelmondiston as a hinterland village together with the neighbouring hamlets of Pin Mill and Lings Lane. The detailed boundaries are respectful of our AONB status thus protecting precious farmland from development.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17791

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Ward

Representation:

I consider the classification as a Hinterland village is correct . The number of new houses with a proportion of affordable housing at 52 is probably close to the maximum organic growth, and and the choice of land south of B1456 close to Lings Lane, if there has to be development, is correct as being the nearest to the village centre and its facilities. The decision by elected councillors against the professional staff to approve 24 new houses west of Woodlands in the AONB area was a bad mistake which I trust will not be repeated.

Full text:

I consider the classification as a Hinterland village is correct . The number of new houses with a proportion of affordable housing at 52 is probably close to the maximum organic growth, and and the choice of land south of B1456 close to Lings Lane, if there has to be development, is correct as being the nearest to the village centre and its facilities. The decision by elected councillors against the professional staff to approve 24 new houses west of Woodlands in the AONB area was a bad mistake which I trust will not be repeated.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17819

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Miss Ondraya Plowman

Representation:

I agree that this should be a hinterland village and as an area of outstanding natural beauty should be protected. Houses should be kept to a minimum and not built too close to existing properties, which unfortunately is not the case with the approved development on land south of White House farm. The local plan for 52 houses over 17 years should hopefully stop the Hill Farm development for 70 houses from being approved.

Full text:

I agree that this should be a hinterland village and as an area of outstanding natural beauty should be protected. Houses should be kept to a minimum and not built too close to existing properties, which unfortunately is not the case with the approved development on land south of White House farm. The local plan for 52 houses over 17 years should hopefully stop the Hill Farm development for 70 houses from being approved.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17866

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Plowman

Representation:

We support the development plan for the next 17 years for Chelmondiston, Lings Lane and Pinmill. Despite having to have seven houses so close to our property taking all our day light. We believe Babergh's document protects our areas of Outstanding Beauty, and helps to protect our village from over development.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17869

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Chelmondiston Parish Council

Representation:

Chelmondiston Parish Council recognise the amount of detailed work that goes into compiling the Local Plan and all its supporting documents and would like to express our gratitude to everybody involved in it.

Full text:

Chelmondiston Parish Council recognise the amount of detailed work that goes into compiling the Local Plan and all its supporting documents and would like to express our gratitude to everybody involved in it.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17888

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Chelmondiston Parish Council

Representation:

Please see attachment

Full text:

Place Maps – Chelmondiston.

Chelmondiston Parish Council fully agree and support the designation of Chelmondiston as a Hinterland Village and agree that it lacks a number of the required attributes of a Core Village . We also recognise that the Minimum housing requirement for NP Areas (Table 04) of 52 is not inappropriate being about a 10% increase in the number of households up to 2036. At the same time we stress that there is considerable opposition to the consent approved for 24 (out of these 52) houses east of Richardsons Lane that will be built on AONB land. We have also examined both the other planning consents approved and the potential site of land south of the B1456 (from the corner of Lings Lane) and feel that in principle all this is acceptable. We also support broadly the Sustainability Appraisal (Annex G) for this latter site, save for item 3.2 where we disagree that this is “within 1000m from Local Enterprise Zone”. We have noted the outstanding consents, some of which have not yet been completed and agree the statements made in the draft SHEELA. We are aware of considerable opposition to any other, particularly large scale, development taking place within the parish boundary.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18127

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Humphreys

Representation:

Having already presented written objections, with clear reasons, in Nov. 2017 and Jan. 2019, I'm reluctantly resigned to accepting what appears to be a compromise! However, I'm strongly inclined to support the view expressed in Representation SP03, ID: 17870, and question whether the compromise is enough to ameliorate my concerns!

Full text:

Having already presented written objections, with clear reasons, in Nov. 2017 and Jan. 2019, I'm reluctantly resigned to accepting what appears to be a compromise! However, I'm strongly inclined to support the view expressed in Representation SP03, ID: 17870, and question whether the compromise is enough to ameliorate my concerns!

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18136

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Agent: Pippa Short

Representation:

See attached representation

Full text:

See attached representation

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18871

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Sterling

Representation:

No more additional housing schemes should come forward in Chelmondiston. The AONB designation is an important constraint weighing against more growth.

Full text:

General:
There has been rampant housing development/permissions on the Shotley Peninsula in recent years, as across the UK, under the umbrella term of ‘housing need’.

Whilst there certainly exists an actual need for roofs-over-heads, much of the pressure to build arises from developers and their share holders’ ‘need’, land owner opportunistic ‘need’, and the need for grant-starved councils for finance for which the New Homes Bonus - a government-created carrot to pressurise councils to pass development permissions - is a significant source of income as long as development projects keep rolling in. However, unless we are willing to keep building over the countryside this cannot but be short-term financial planning.

This ‘perfect storm’ of interests is generally deflected from general public examination - under the banner of housing need - by the term ‘affordable housing’, which is 80% of market housing, so making it unaffordable housing for those in actual housing need. An application from a developer will therefore contain the ‘sop’ of a small number of such ‘affordable homes’ but which are often dropped by the developer at a very late stage as apparently suddenly becoming commercially unviable.
The outcome of this is what we see - development after development of executive-style housing while true housing need is minimally addressed, if at all.

Specific:
Extra development means extra traffic. Each dwelling would probably have 2 or more cars. However for climate and ecological imperatives planning now needs to stop predicating development on the individualised use of cars (see below). Also whilst Highways‘ narrow perception of road capacity dominates planning, the capacity of people to absorb the effects does not. Nor on the fabric of road-side dwellings and other builds. We increasingly have a plethora of medical evidence of the often drastic effects of pollution and noise, causing for example high blood pressure leading to strokes and heart attacks, reduced cognition in children in particular, increased incidence of dementia etc as well as buildup of high levels of toxic pollution to the ground and groundwater from tyres and brakes.
Indeed I live all but 10 feet from the B1456 in Chelmondiston - and suffer difficult to manage hyper tension. ut I am concerned even more for the people at the confluence of this pollution from the incessant and mounting amounts of traffic that emanate from developments on the Peninsula - at The Strand where there is already standing traffic/pollution from tailbacks in rush hours.
Planning is not handed down by God but is about, and by, us human beings - and the effect of drastically increasing traffic, including the massive amount from Ganges as and when built, should therefore be foremost in planning.

Moreover housing and other developments simply must also be primarily subject to the pressing priorities of our atmospheric heating (now subject to the Paris Accords) and the sheer massive scale disappearance of wildlife upon which all life on Earth, including ours, depends. Achim Steiner, administrator of the UN Development Programme said, “Biodiversity and the ecosystem services it supports are not only the foundation for our life on Earth, but critical to the livelihoods and well-being of people everywhere.
And Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, at the University of Sydney, Australia said, “If insect species losses cannot be halted, this will have catastrophic consequences for both the planet’s ecosystems and for the survival of mankind.”

What is the point of anything, including company profits, council finances or even basic housing need if we only have 10 years left (IPCC) before an atmospheric feedback loop and ecological collapse renders things out of control of anybody, let alone a local council?
Up to now the destruction of the ecological system has been down to wrongly prioritised local development - economic growth’s roads, housing, industrial developments and so on - so that any such further developments need urgently to reprioritise the need for massively more trees, hedgerows and connected wildness - as much for carbon sequestration as for the survival of the eco system and our health and our sanity - and truly localised, sustainable economies.
This would impact not only on reducing road use by private means, but designing housing to passivhaus or near passivhous standard and co-dependent (community based) heating and energy sharing from sustainable sources - much as has been done for decades in Scandinavia for example. This in itself increases the quality of life by building community and decreasing the isolation, alienation and crime-increasing results of urbanisation through current models of development.

‘Sustainable’ should primarily mean ecologically sustainable and all that that would mean. More development should include the impetus to use cycling, walking and public transport - at the least car sharing: no room, for example, for more than one car per dwelling, and indeed preferably only one car parking space between 2 or 3 dwellings. This may seem drastic but it is but touching the surface of the wholesale life-style changes that we must adopt to survive (see Attenborough), and planning has a vital role in this. Planning departments and committees need to fully wake up to it.

While planning permissions have been given to specified sites in Chelmondiston I am assured by the Chief Planning Officer at Babergh that ‘that is ‘it’. However a developer and a Chelmondiston farmer seem to hope to build on an ANOB site even though I was assured this was not going to happen. I am aware of the potential of ‘windfall sites’, defined in Defining Buildings.co.uk as ‘Sites which have not been specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously-developed sites that have unexpectedly become available.‘ An ANOB area is not ‘previously developed’.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19574

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Savills

Representation:

The proposed approach of settlement boundary expansion will facilitate limited infill development, but it is unlikely to be at the scale to trigger the delivery of affordable housing.

Full text:

see attached scanned representation

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19583

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Linden Homes

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation:

It is considered that Chelmondiston is a very sustainable location, and given the proximity to the A12/A14 and Ipswich, it could accommodate additional small and medium sites, particularly through the sub-division of larger sites, as set out in more detail attached.

The amended settlement
boundary only allows for one new site for potentially 15 units.
It is considered there are sites, such as at the land at Hill Farm Lane, which are better related to the settlement and existing built development.

Linden Homes are actively seeking to promote the land at Hill Farm, Chelmondiston for residential development.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response