LA008 - Land south east of Back Lane, Copdock and Washbrook

Showing comments 1 to 25 of 25

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16251

Received: 12/08/2019

Respondent: Mr Adrian Ward

Representation:

SITE LA 008 COPDOCK & WASHBROOK

I am a resident of Washbrook. My view on this proposed site is that it is far too large with far too many homes on fields landlocked by very narrow and dangerous country lanes (Elm lane & Back lane) that are completely unsuited to supporting traffic from such a large development.

I therefore strongly object to this site being adopted in either Babergh's or the village plan.

Adrian Ward

Full text:

SITE LA 008 COPDOCK & WASHBROOK

I am a resident of Washbrook. My view on this proposed site is that it is far too large with far too many homes on fields landlocked by very narrow and dangerous country lanes (Elm lane & Back lane) that are completely unsuited to supporting traffic from such a large development.

I therefore strongly object to this site being adopted in either Babergh's or the village plan.

Adrian Ward

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16420

Received: 02/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Terry Babbs

Representation:

Proposed development will effectively double the size and population of existing Copdock and Washbrook village and totally change it's rural environment. Development is on rising ground so must only be one or two story buildings with effective screening from existing village below. No access should be allowed to/from Elm Lane or Back Lane (which narrows to a single track on a bend with restricted visibility), these are country lanes and increased use would add to noise and pollution levels in the village. Traffic from site will add to the current weekday morning traffic gridlock on Swan Hill/Hadleigh Road.

Full text:

Proposed development will effectively double the size and population of existing Copdock and Washbrook village and totally change it's rural environment. Development is on rising ground so must only be one or two story buildings with effective screening from existing village below. No access should be allowed to/from Elm Lane or Back Lane (which narrows to a single track on a bend with restricted visibility), these are country lanes and increased use would add to noise and pollution levels in the village. Traffic from site will add to the current weekday morning traffic gridlock on Swan Hill/Hadleigh Road.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16441

Received: 04/09/2019

Respondent: John & Susan Castle

Representation:

Strongly objects due to unnecessary use of good quality green belt agricultural land & the increase of 50% of the village size, we don't want to become a suburb of Ipswich. Loss of wildlife, poor access, loss of long standing village allotments, pollution and air quality will be effected also. Schools and doctors are at full capacity. The traffic is horrendous .

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16443

Received: 05/09/2019

Respondent: Miss Julie Tomkins

Representation:

Infrastructure at Copdock interchange is already unable to cope with the sheer weight of traffic. The village would be unable cope with the extra strain on the local amenities & recourses, were still on the waiting list to register for the doctors. How will this proposed development be supported by gas & sewage as the majority of the properties in the village are not connected to either main gas or sewage

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16485

Received: 09/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian J. Geary

Representation:

Lack of infrastructure improvements. Improving the layout and traffic movement of Copdock roundabout should take priority over development of this site.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16775

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Brown

Representation:

We support this land for development

Full text:

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing in response to the BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (Reg 18) document. I am representing the 4 owners of one of the pieces of land identified for development under Allocation LA008. I am writing to provide a brief update to confirm we intend to bring this site forward for development. The key points are:
• Over recent months we have been actively engaging with the other two parties who own land within this allocation as to the best options to collaborate to bring the land forward.
• An initial piece of feasibility work has been performed by Property Consultants, to confirm the suitability of the land for development, and to look at considerations such as policy, landscaping, drainage, density and layout.
• Highways have also been engaged for initial analysis around access and traffic management.
• We have met with the Parish to understand their aspirations for the site.

Overall we are supportive of this allocation and look forward to working with BMSDC on next steps.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17026

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council

Representation:

vii) Highway mitigation on the Old London Road/dual carriageway. Consider main access to site and appropriateness of additional access points on single carriage roads specifically Back Lane and Elm Lane. Resident feedback dictates a solution must be sought to reduce adverse impact on Back Lane and Elm Lane. Existing pedestrian routes via both Back Lane and Elm Lane are deemed unsafe. An inappropriate solution to residents will result in significant objections to any planning application.

Full text:

vii) Highway mitigation on the Old London Road/dual carriageway. Consider main access to site and appropriateness of additional access points on single carriage roads specifically Back Lane and Elm Lane. Resident feedback dictates a solution must be sought to reduce adverse impact on Back Lane and Elm Lane. Existing pedestrian routes via both Back Lane and Elm Lane are deemed unsafe. An inappropriate solution to residents will result in significant objections to any planning application.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17027

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council

Representation:

VII) Access to green space is currently difficult as it is on the other side of the Dual Carriageway, safe pedestrian access must be considered and allowed for.

iii) A full suite of environmental impact reports to be undertaken to ensure development is feasible and does not adversely impact the environment.

Flooding Surface water and fluvial flood risk resulting from the 226 houses on the house must be effectively mitigated.

Full text:

VII) Access to green space is currently difficult as it is on the other side of the Dual Carriageway, safe pedestrian access must be considered and allowed for.

iii) A full suite of environmental impact reports to be undertaken to ensure development is feasible and does not adversely impact the environment.

Flooding Surface water and fluvial flood risk resulting from the 226 houses on the house must be effectively mitigated.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17031

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council

Representation:

iv) Parish council and resident consultation makes it clear that the allotments must remain in current location. AECOM plan demonstrates this is feasible and achieves desired number of houses on site.

Full text:

iv) Parish council and resident consultation makes it clear that the allotments must remain in current location. AECOM plan demonstrates this is feasible and achieves desired number of houses on site.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17050

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Copdock & Washbrook Sustainable Development Group (SDG)

Representation:

We feel (Sustainable Development Group) that the recommendations made by Babergh District Council relating to Copdock and Washbrook recommending LA008 and LA 009 are sound and to be recommended. The only caveat being that it is only sound if access to LA008 is made via Old London Road and a traffic light junction.

Use of either Back or Elm lane as access points to LA008 is not viable.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17069

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Briggs

Representation:

I support LA 008 development but I must state that any use of either Back or Elm lane as access points to LA008 is not something I could support

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17082

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

Representation:

This is a major site immediately adjacent to 3 grade II listed buildings. In order to limit the impact on the setting of the listed building we would urge that buffer areas are included in the site layout in addition to appropriate landscaping and planting.

We object to the term ‘close setting of heritage assets’. It is unclear what the term ‘close setting’ refers to but it is not helpful in protecting the significance of heritage assets which may have extensive settings which contribute to the significance of the asset. ‘Close setting’ should be replaced with ‘setting’.

Full text:

This is a major site immediately adjacent to 3 grade II listed buildings. In order to limit the impact on the setting of the listed building we would urge that buffer areas are included in the site layout in addition to appropriate landscaping and planting.

We object to the use of the term ‘close setting of heritage assets’ within the policies accompanying the site allocations. It is unclear what the term ‘close setting’ refers to but it is not helpful in protecting the significance of heritage assets which may have extensive settings which contribute to the significance of the asset. The term is not compliant with the NPPF para 194 or Historic England Guidance Note The Setting of Heritage Assets Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition). ‘Close setting’ should be replaced with ‘setting’ as the extent of an asset's setting and the contribution it makes to the significance of a heritage asset should be assessed for each proposal.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17118

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Stella Blackwell

Representation:

There are significant privacy, overshadowing and light reducing concerns for the properties on the northern edge of the proposed site if development takes place close to the northern boundary. Because of the contours of the hill, the development site will sit above some properties (in particular ‘Highfield’ ) and any development close to this boundary would significantly overshadow existing properties and affect privacy, with a risk of loss of light over the winter months. For this reason, I propose a buffer zone along the northern side of the development.

Full text:

There are significant privacy, overshadowing and light reducing concerns for the properties on the northern edge of the proposed site if development takes place close to the northern boundary. Because of the contours of the hill, the development site will sit above some properties (in particular ‘Highfield’) and any development close to this boundary would significantly overshadow existing properties and affect privacy, with a risk of loss of light over the winter months. For this reason, I propose a buffer zone along the northern side of the development.

In addition to this, I would also like to flag the following concerns:

- There is an issue of nature conservation on the proposed site with bats and slow worms known to inhabit this area

- A development of this size increases the size of the main hub of the village by over 50%, significantly changing the character of the village

- I have concerns about this area supporting such a large development because it does not and cannot offer the road infrastructure. To provide examples, Back Lane is already a rat run. Living on the road, we regularly hear screeching breaks and beeps of horns. Highway safety is a very real concern. The lack of pavement coupled with two 90 degree bends is extremely dangerous. This will only get worse with increased housing. The whole area of Copdock and Washbrook already serves as a rat-run. Trying to get anywhere north in rush hour is frustrating. The Copdock Interchange is infamous and needs no explanation, but Swan Hill (heading north out of Washbrook) is just as bad as people hope to find a quicker route into Ipswich, only to be held in a queue for the Beagle roundabout for 30 minutes. It takes over 45 minutes to drive into town during rush hour, begging the question, how can the village be categorised as ‘Ipswich fringe’? The roads into town from the south and west are choked, even before Wolsey Grange is inhabited

- From a services perspective, the school is at capacity and it’s catchment area is already small. We have no shops and a shortage of GP services in this area

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17314

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Zena Gravener

Representation:

There must be NO access from this site from either Elm Lane or Back Lane. Both lanes are small and only suitable for light local traffic.
Back lane, in particular, has listed houses adjacent to the road, with high banks coming down to the road., which is very narrow.
Bends add making passing other vehicles extremely difficult and dangerous. The ONLY access to and from LAOO8 has to be via Old London Road,
With more housing , and consequently more people living in the village; it is imperative that a safe crossing is provided across the very busy Old London Road.
Ideally this would be a footbridge over the road.
But at the very least it should be traffic lights.
There is a lot of traffic on this road, especially at peak times. Police have monitored it recently and found speeds greatly exceeding speed limits.
The village has excellent sports & leisure facilities, Tennis courts, Bowls Green, Football Pitch, Cricket Pitch: with a large and much used Village Hall and Cricket Pavillion.
These are all situated on the Southbound Carriageway, therefore on the opposite side of the busy dual carriage way to the proposed site,LAOO8.
For residents, especially children, to be able to access these facilities safely, it is vital that a safe crossing is installed.
Traffic Lights would have the added benefit of slowing traffic down on this increasingly busy and dangerous road.
I do hope that careful notice will be taken of worried & concerned residents.

Full text:

There must be NO access from this site from either Elm Lane or Back Lane. Both lanes are small and only suitable for light local traffic.
Back lane, in particular, has listed houses adjacent to the road, with high banks coming down to the road., which is very narrow.
Bends add making passing other vehicles extremely difficult and dangerous. The ONLY access to and from LAOO8 has to be via Old London Road,
With more housing , and consequently more people living in the village; it is imperative that a safe crossing is provided across the very busy Old London Road.
Ideally this would be a footbridge over the road.
But at the very least it should be traffic lights.
There is a lot of traffic on this road, especially at peak times. Police have monitored it recently and found speeds greatly exceeding speed limits.
The village has excellent sports & leisure facilities, Tennis courts, Bowls Green, Football Pitch, Cricket Pitch: with a large and much used Village Hall and Cricket Pavillion.
These are all situated on the Southbound Carriageway, therefore on the opposite side of the busy dual carriage way to the proposed site,LAOO8.
For residents, especially children, to be able to access these facilities safely, it is vital that a safe crossing is installed.
Traffic Lights would have the added benefit of slowing traffic down on this increasingly busy and dangerous road.
I do hope that careful notice will be taken of worried & concerned residents.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17494

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Ms Catherine Dell

Representation:

Vehicle access to this development must be from London Road only. Back Lane is too narrow to accommodate additional traffic. Pedestrian access from the development to Back Lane is desirable but measures to enhance safety for pedestrians along Back Lane should be introduced.

Full text:

Vehicle access to this development must be from London Road only. Back Lane is too narrow to accommodate additional traffic. Pedestrian access from the development to Back Lane is desirable but measures to enhance safety for pedestrians along Back Lane should be introduced.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17498

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council - Corporate Property

Representation:

Suffolk County Council are joint owners of the land. I confirm this site is available and that we intend to bring the site forward for development. Key points are:

• Over recent months we have been engaging with the other two parties who own land within this allocation. Collaboration agreement agreed in draft between 2 of the 3 parties and discussion ongoing with the 3rd.
• Initial feasibility work has been performed to confirm the suitability of the land for development, and to look at initial considerations such as policy, landscaping, drainage, density and layout.
• Highways have also been engaged for initial conversations around access and traffic management.
• Met with the Parish to understand their aspirations for the site.

Full text:

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing in response to the BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (Reg 18) document. I am representing Suffolk County Council, who are joint owners of the land identified for development under Allocation LA008, Copdock and Washbrook. I confirm this site is available and that we intend to bring the site forward for development. Key points are:

• Over recent months we have been engaging with the other two parties who own land within this allocation. This engagement is progressing well, with a collaboration agreement agreed in draft between 2 of the 3 parties and discussion ongoing with the 3rd.
• An initial piece of feasibility work has been performed by Property Consultants, to confirm the suitability of the land for development, and to look at initial considerations such as policy, landscaping, drainage, density and layout.
• Highways have also been engaged for initial conversations around access and traffic management.
• We have met with the Parish to understand their aspirations for the site.

Overall we are supportive of this allocation and look forward to working with BMSDC on next steps.

Kind regards

Rob Hancock

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18109

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Le Grys

Representation:

On behalf of local residents and land owners Mr Rouse and Mr Dunt, strong objection to the scale of the development. It is considered that the extent of the scheme is far too great for a village of this size. It would be more preferable for smaller sites to be provided such as those mentioned elsewhere including LA009 and the land directly opposite.

Full text:

On behalf of local residents and land owners Mr Rouse and Mr Dunt, strong objection to the scale of the development. It is considered that the extent of the scheme is far too great for a village of this size. It would be more preferable for smaller sites to be provided such as those mentioned elsewhere including LA009 and the land directly opposite.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18160

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Blackwell

Representation:

Impact on existing housing, particularly to north including winter sunlight issues due to aspect of the hill at northern end. Impact of increased traffic on rural lanes and lack of current road safety features/capacity, let alone with increased housing and traffic. Impact on wildlife - bats and slowworms both known to exist northern side. Lack of school places, medical facilities and of supporting infrastructure.

Full text:

Impact on existing housing, particularly to north including winter sunlight issues due to aspect of the hill at northern end. Impact of increased traffic on rural lanes and lack of current road safety features/capacity, let alone with increased housing and traffic. Impact on wildlife - bats and slowworms both known to exist northern side. Lack of school places, medical facilities and of supporting infrastructure.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18266

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

Add: An archaeological assessment and measures for managing impacts on archaeological remains are provided.
Add: A flood risk assessment should be carried out to identify suitable mitigation and a deliverable strategy for the disposal of surface water. Where possible development should avoid proportions of the site with predicted or historic flooding.
Policy should require the developer to test the potential resources on the site to identify if use of the mineral on site is appropriate.
Nearby Rights of Way should be protected and enhanced to enable access to the countryside and enable active transport.
Should require a transport assessment. Recommended that the IDP includes more detail on requirements for the site.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18543

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

The site would result in a substantial level of growth to the existing settlement, therefore allocations would result in a significant alteration to the character and appearance of the settlement. How the settlement sits in and relates to its surroundings will be important and this should be considered in the site allocation process. Grade II listed buildings lie the south east and the north-east of the site. Any development of the site has the potential to impact upon these heritage assets through a change in their settings. These heritage assets should be listed in the policy, and text added requiring that development is designed to conserve and where appropriate enhance these listed buildings and their settings.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18698

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Hodge

Representation:

Needs to be a Light Controlled Pedestrian Crossing from Elm Lane over to the Village Hall. No safe access to sports/recreation facilities. If the Development LA008 goes ahead, this will potentially add more adults and children wishing to cross the road. Perhaps it could be incorporated as a condition, with the developers covering the cost.

Further crossings along the Old London Road would be a great safety benefit.

I also urge you to refuse permission for vehicular access from the proposed Development LA 008 to either Back Lane or Elm Lane. Both of these struggle to cope with existing traffic, without adding 240 plus cars. The only solution is for a junction directly onto the Old London Road.

Full text:

Robert Hobbs, Babergh Corporate Manager.

Dear Mr. Hobbs,

I spoke to you at the recent Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Consultation held in Copdock Village Hall on Thursday 8th August 2019.

I am sending this email to remind you how strongly I feel about two issues.

1. There needs to be a Light Controlled Pedestrian Crossing from Elm Lane over to the Village Hall. We have an excellent set of Sports and Recreational Facilities, but no safe access from the existing village. It is difficult to see South, along the Old London Road at this point, and even if cars do keep to the 50 mph limit, they are upon you too quickly. If the Development LA008 goes ahead, this will potentially add more adults and children wishing to cross the road.

Perhaps it could be incorporated as a condition of the Planning Permission granted to the developers of LA008, with the developers covering the cost.

Further crossings along the Old London Road would be a great safety benefit.

2. I also urge you to refuse permission for vehicular access from the proposed Development LA 008 to either Back Lane or Elm Lane. Both of these struggle to cope with existing traffic, without adding 240 plus cars. The only solution is for a junction directly onto the Old London Road.

I look forward to hearing that you have considered these issues.

Yours sincerely,

Carolyn A. Hodge ( Mrs.)

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18718

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Adrian Ward

Representation:

Feel really strongly that this is far too large a development for a small village. The traffic and education infrastructure cannot support it. In particular, there should be no access to Elm Lane or Back Lane. Neither lane is sufficiently wide to allow safe access to a large housing development. In particular the blind bend at the bottom of Back Lane reduces to a width less than 3.5m and this is not sufficient room for two cars to pass each other let alone safely.

far too large a development for a dsmall village and road infrastructure is completely insufficient. Elm lane and Back Lane are narrow country lanes.

Full text:

I really feel strongly that this is far too large a development for a small village. The traffic and education infrastructure cannot support it. In particular, there should be no access to Elm Lane or Back Lane. Neither lane is sufficiently wide to allow safe access to a large housing development. In particular the blind bend at the bottom of Back Lane reduces to a width less than 3.5m and this is not sufficient room for two cars to pass each other let alone safely.

The development that I have referred to has been marked as LA008 by Babergh District Council.

LA008 is not something I could support. – far too large a development for a dsmall village and road infrastructure is completely insufficient. Elm lane and Back Lane are narrow country lanes.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19058

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Building Partnerships Ltd

Representation:

Object to LA009. We submit that site SS1175 is a
reasonable alternative to site LA009 as Copdock and Washbrook is a sustainable location for new
mixed use development. This site should be given further consideration. Technical report supplied to demonstrate that the proposed development is excellently located to encourage the use of sustainable transport. Drawing provided to show a potential access to serve the site. Further access points can be provided onto Swan Hill with the potential to route traffic through the development away from the village.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19082

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Ipswich Borough Council

Representation:

Site allocation LA008 allocated 13ha of land for approximately 226 dwellings. The site lies south of Ipswich, within the Ipswich Fringe and is a new allocation. This site will have impact on existing congestion around the A14 junction which is already recognised by Suffolk County Council as an issue requiring an application for Government funding to help mitigate this over the plan period. It is important that the scale of this proposed site does not adversely impact on this A14 junction and mitigation is included.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19112

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Agent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd.

Representation:

Insert a new paragraph (below healthcare provision) as follows:
VII. Contributions, to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.
Provision of additional Household Waste Recycling to become paragraph VIII
Provision of new footway link between the site and Copdock and a traffic management
scheme to become paragraph IX

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments: