LA042 - Land at Tye Farm, Great Cornard

Showing comments 1 to 18 of 18

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16413

Received: 01/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Carole Wills

Representation:

This proposal is gross over development of an already crowded area. The infrastructure around Great Cornard and Sudbury cannot cope with another large building spree like this. We have already had the Carsons Drive and Radiator Road projects and others are already approved. It is time for other areas to take new houses if they are required.

Full text:

This proposal is gross over development of an already crowded area. The infrastructure around Great Cornard and Sudbury cannot cope with another large building spree like this. We have already had the Carsons Drive and Radiator Road projects and others are already approved. It is time for other areas to take new houses if they are required.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16414

Received: 28/08/2019

Respondent: Mrs A Nichols

Representation:

I object to LA042, The sheer scale dominating Great Cornard . Visual Dominance on the skyline. Road infrastructure is not changing its only adding more cars to the existing roads. Schools, Healthcare, household waste capacity concerns. Where are people to gain employment. Woodlands Rise development even more houses for Cornard. Nearest town has a down-graded fire station, no hospital only a health centre. Main concerns are loss of privacy/overlooking and water drainage . Considerable cost I may have to rectify any problems with my property in result to this development

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16477

Received: 11/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Martin Peers

Representation:

You are determined to ignore the importance of this site for wildlife - butterflies [20 species including the endangered White-letter Hairstreak] and birds [5 species of breeding warblers, the most important site in Great Cornard] are especially well represented. Actions nothing short of ecological vandalism. Suggested you could build on the woodland adjoining A134 but ignored. Large number of local people walk here. Only places left to walk would be arable deserts. Total disgrace that developers have been allowed by you to get what they want at the expense of the well-being of local people and last important vestiges of wildlife locally.

Full text:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Judging from your insistence on building 500 houses on the last area of unimproved grassland in this area, you are determined to ignore the importance of this site for wildlife - butterflies [20 species including the endangered White-letter Hairstreak] and birds [5 species of breeding warblers, the most important site in Great Cornard] are especially well represented.

Your actions are nothing short of ecological vandalism and your ecologist consultant can never have the information about this site that I possess from 12 years of visiting it. I suggested that you could build on the woodland adjoining the A134 but it is obvious that you have ignored my informed knowledge about the site and intend to go on and build all over it. This is not to mention the fact that large numbers of local people gain pleasure from walking there. If you build on this site then you are ensuring that the only places left for people to walk in this area are the arable deserts that surround us here. All the developers want is land for housing - it is a total disgrace that they have been allowed by you to get what they want at the expense of the well-being of local people and the last important vestiges of wildlife in the Sudbury and Great Cornard areas. Your children and grandchildren will not thank you for such wanton vandalism.

Yours etc.,
Martin Peers

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16607

Received: 15/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs ~Shirley Smith

Representation:

There is not the infrastructure to support the housing we have in the village now. 500 more houses would put even more strain on the sewer system, schools, doctors, dentists, ambulances. Sudbury fire service retained, unable to attend local fires sometimes. No longer a current bus service for residents for most of Shawlands Avenue for: Sudbury, local doctors or Health Centre. Shawlands Avenue only road access top of Shawlands estate, already queues at A134 junction. A134 is an accident blackspot; access from new estate could not be made onto it. 500 houses means 1,000 more cars!

Full text:

There is not the infrastructure to support the housing we have in the village now. 500 more houses would put even more strain on the sewer system, schools, doctors, dentists, ambulances. Sudbury fire service retained, unable to attend local fires sometimes. No longer a current bus service for residents for most of Shawlands Avenue for: Sudbury, local doctors or Health Centre. Shawlands Avenue only road access top of Shawlands estate, already queues at A134 junction. A134 is an accident blackspot; access from new estate could not be made onto it. 500 houses means 1,000 more cars!

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16715

Received: 17/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Alan Giles

Representation:

The farmer who owns the site has already taken out hedges and filled in ditches which has caused my garden to become very boggy from the excess water from his land. I have lived here over 40 years and never had an issue with access water from his land. As for the terrain of the land where will the excess water go?

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16779

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sue Thoma

Representation:

Concerns over visual impact on countryside, loss of recreational space, destruction and fragmentation of wildlife habitat.

Full text:

I know that Sudbury is set to expand even further and I am sure a lot of thought is going into where this will happen and how the infrastructure will cope. However, the delay in building Chilton Woods should not have to mean that other sites, especially in Cornard which has been subjected to non-stop development for years (and still ongoing) are now needed to make up the numbers.

If it is considered absolutely necessary to build up to 500 houses on the Tye Farm site (previously judged unsuitable!) I would have concerns about the visual impact on the countryside overlooking Cornard. I would also strongly oppose any part of the development impacting on Shawlands Nature Reserve or the adjacent sloping grassland and wildflower meadow with its surrounding mature hedgerows, all of which support many species of birds, insects, small mammals and other creatures in a mix of interconnected habitats. This is a beautiful piece of countryside highly valued by local people, including myself, as a place to walk and enjoy the open space, proximity to nature and wonderful views across the valley. The footpath through the trees and scrub along the bank from the Pot Kilns to Shawlands Wood also offers a lovely "nature walk" alternative to the pavements on the busy road, as well as an abundance of hedgerow fruits in late summer and autumn for humans and wildlife alike.

It is the nearest accessible natural green space for many Cornard residents for whom it is too far to walk to the river meadows or country park when time is short. Places like this are being lost at an alarming rate as towns expand, yet at the same time becoming increasingly important for mental health and wellbeing. "Enhanced" tarmacked walkways through housing estates just don't have quite the same appeal and tend to be more depressing than uplifting.

Any new road through this area would have huge impact on its value as recreational space and cause irreparable damage, fragmentation and isolation of wildlife habitat which no "mitigation measures' can ever fully compensate for. Shawlands Avenue is already a very busy road, and I would imagine such a large-scale development would require road access on to the A134 anyway.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16898

Received: 21/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Glosby

Representation:

As I understand it,the portion deemed suitable for building at Tye Farm has already been rejected as unsuitable by a previous planning inspector,so what has changed? The land is the same - the mindset must have altered!
The area designated Shawlands Wood Nature Reserve must be protected at all costs.
Assuming any development went ahead, I ask the question, where are all the potential occupants being "imported" from?
Large scale developments ultimately impinge on the health and wellbeing of people and the natural world.

Full text:

As I understand it,the portion deemed suitable for building at Tye Farm has already been rejected as unsuitable by a previous planning inspector,so what has changed? The land is the same - the mindset must have altered!
The area designated Shawlands Wood Nature Reserve must be protected at all costs.
Assuming any development went ahead, I ask the question, where are all the potential occupants being "imported" from?
Large scale developments ultimately impinge on the health and wellbeing of people and the natural world.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17042

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Great Cornard Parish Council

Representation:

Site is too large for the 500 dwellings. Should go no further than the track from the Pot Kilns and junction of the water tower and Tye Farm. Inspector for the Babergh Local Plan (2006) recommended the deletion of site HS09J from the Plan. Item V, wording should state that the 70m contour line 'must not be breached'. Strongly object to item X always believed that safe access point would be from A134. Access from Shawlands Avenue is detrimental to LNR and play space. No reference to proximity of Grade I listed building. No part of development should be visible from Cornard Tye. Unsuitable for commercial/industrial use. Remaining agricultural land should be allocated as Country Park. Flood Risk. Safe routes to/from a primary school. Need to address doctor provision.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17353

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Ms A D

Representation:

great cornard has already been over developed. This site seems totally unsuitable for 500 dwellings. Access points from shawlands avenue would be unsafe and add to an already congested road. Where do you propose these occupants would work? Hospitals, doctors surgery are already fit to burst. Schools are also full! Why would you allow developers to build on shawlands woods. With 1000 houses at chilton woods surely that is enough for the Sudbury and surrounding areas to contribute to the 7500 quota.

Full text:

great cornard has already been over developed. This site seems totally unsuitable for 500 dwellings. Access points from shawlands avenue would be unsafe and add to an already congested road. Where do you propose these occupants would work? Hospitals, doctors surgery are already fit to burst. Schools are also full! Why would you allow developers to build on shawlands woods. With 1000 houses at chilton woods surely that is enough for the Sudbury and surrounding areas to contribute to the 7500 quota.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17685

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Sudbury Area Green Belt Group

Representation:

We object to the failure to refer to the Inspector's Report on 'Babergh DC Local Plan Alteration no 2' 2005, 3.96.12.1, 3.96.12.8 etc, which required deletion of this site. We point out obvious assessment needs, including of the exceptional landscape; and failure to identify where building could be best located within the site. We argue against this being a substitute for Chilton Woods. Any development here must not override Babergh's other guidance.

Full text:

We must object that this plan repeats the error, that is seen in the 2014 Inspector’s report on the Core Strategy, of not referring to the adverse rulings of the Inspector's Report on 'Babergh DC Local Plan Alteration no 2' 2005, 3.96.12.1, 3.96.12.8 etc. We assume that after the Inspector in 2005 quashed Policy HS09J, OM84 etc, and that number vanished from Babergh’s indexes, all references to it vanished at the same time. The Inspector wrote “I am of the view that it is not suitable for allocation, I have recommended that it should be deleted from the Plan and Carsons Lane substituted” (the Carsons Drive development is now being built).

Anyone looking at this site will ask whether it has been assessed regarding road access, steepness of slopes, importance for views and other landscape features, biodiversity value of natural grassland and relationship with Shawlands Local Nature Reserve, public access to natural green space so close to the main Great Cornard estate, etc. We therefore are relieved to see the statement: “The development shall be expected to comply with the following:
Accessible natural green space is retained or an alternative provision of equal or greater quality, accessibility and quantity is provided as part of the scheme;
Public rights of way passing through the site are retained and enhanced; An ecological survey, and any necessary mitigation measures are provided” but we deeply question whether the implied results can satisfactorily be achieved. We also object to “Take into consideration the 70m contour line considered the maximum height for development to reduce visual impact from the eastern aspect;” as really that is the height of the slope and ridge, and surely anyone would be far more concerned about the views to and from the west and south-west than from the east. That this site has reached Land Allocation stage without any evidence of such an assessment seems incredible, and apparently there has been no kind of document produced. However some years ago there was a Local Plan exhibition, and when asked about these points, the Babergh representative said “well, it’s never going to happen”. The north or east edges of the site, are on arable land, less visually obtrusive, and not the location shown in Gainsborough’s ‘Mr & Mrs Robert Andrews’ painting, and perhaps easier for road access, so if there is an intention to restrict the development to the north or east, then this should be stated.
Do we assume that, as implied in the Planning Inspector’s 2014 report on the Local Plan, the intention is to develop this site, only in the event that the Chilton Woods plan is formally abandoned? To abandon Chilton Woods would be a massive and unacceptable failure of the County Council’s plans to release land for housing, on which we are told county councillor Nick Gowrley is currenly heading a taskforce. That this very unsuitable site at Tye Farm could proceed, yet the far more feasible and suitable Chilton Woods founder, would seem incredible. It is we believe universally admitted that Chilton Woods is the better option, and we quote accordingly from the minutes of the County Council Cabinet meeting 17/4/18, paragraph 17: “There is a further risk that without the [Chilton Woods] development, owing to the need to meet housing requirements, Babergh DC would have to release alternative and potentially less suitable sites, eg 500 homes on land to the east of Sudbury/ Gt Cornard, to meet housing need. This could also result in greater pressure for development not yet incorporated into local plans, which as a result is not incorporated into the County Councils own strategies to deliver sufficient infrastructure”.

Unless a really suitable plan for this land can be produced, we WE OBJECT VERY STRONGLY. Our objections are founded in the NPPF para 170: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils”. This is one of the most precious of the scenes round Sudbury and Cornard that are threatened by development.
FIRST: 1.3.3 & 1.4.6 of the Joint Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council Landscape Guidance 2015, are ignored, since the following would surely be contrary: “2.3.3 New development in the countryside should be carefully sited to ensure the best fit with the landscape and to minimise its impact on the appearance of the landscape. Development should be located: I. Away from ridge tops, upper valley slopes or prominent locations. …… VI. Sympathetically with the natural landform – and to avoid hard engineering solutions.” (the latter must be an issue on such a steep slope); and “2.15.1 “To conserve the character of rural/green lanes …….. Any proposal that would adversely affect the physical appearance of a rural lane, or give rise to an unacceptable increase in the amount of traffic using them or an unacceptable level of associated activity, noise or disturbance arising as a result of the development would be inappropriate” .
SECOND: throughout this whole plan, we clearly see an issue of Gt Cornard as a 'dumping ground' for more and more building on valley sides and valley floor.
this development plus others in SHELAA totalling approx. 600 houses (plus the 120 on the Persimmon Carsons Drive site now being built) round Great Cornard will exit onto Sheepshead Hill and Prospect Hill, which are narrow hollow lanes with old hedges, leading to the A134. We CANNOT COUNTENANCE any aspect of this application unless the building is confined to areas away from the skyline as seen from the west, and areas visible from Shawlands Avenue with its beautiful landscape. The land between Shawlands and the water tower is a classic example of a local beauty spot, and also has outstanding views across Great Cornard and Sudbury so that you can see laid out the town, river and the Essex hills across the other side of the valley. This is practically the only such viewpoint left locally, it is portrayed in Gainsborough’s ‘Mr & Mrs Robert Andrews’, and it will be lost forever if houses are built all over it.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17916

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Dr David Taylor

Representation:

Environment; very important habitat for birds, insects and flowers will be lost.
Landscape; housing here would intrude into open countryside and the skyline.
Amenity; the grassland immediately above Shawlands Wood is much used for walking and has outstanding views over the town and Stour valley.
Scale; This number of houses is not needed by local people and there is insufficient infrastructure.
Precedent; The planning inspector has previously rejected this site for many good reasons.

Full text:

Environment; very important habitat for birds, insects and flowers will be lost.
Landscape; housing here would intrude into open countryside and the skyline.
Amenity; the grassland immediately above Shawlands Wood is much used for walking and has outstanding views over the town and Stour valley.
Scale; This number of houses is not needed by local people and there is insufficient infrastructure.
Precedent; The planning inspector has previously rejected this site for many good reasons.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17918

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kathy & Ray Barry

Representation:

The Sudbury and Great Cornard Surface Water Management Plan (SGCSWMP) your consultants had access to, make it abundantly clear this site is within the CRITICAL DRAINAGE AREA. Food risk to the area would not only require full betterment but also huge engineering works to ensure no deviation of flood flow path.

The preferred site LA042 or old SHELAA site SS0242 is now proposed to accommodate 500 new properties. No one at the LPA has taken on board what BMT are telling you! Not only will an developer need to ensure complete betterment as recommended by BMT, but given the appalling inadequacy of the current drainage systems in Great Cornard as identified in the SGCSWMP very major improvements will be needed across many parts of Great Cornard. Without such measures being taken sooner or later a catastrophic flood event is probable with the potential for loss of life.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17921

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr AWR Lockhart

Representation:

Strongly object - Incorrect that this site has no history, previous Inspector made comments around the landscape, and the poor relationship to the urban edge and visual impact.
A development of this size would present severe infrastructure issues. No justification for the site.
Lack of jobs in the immediate area for existing population and poor road networks.
Parking issues and traffic issues will become increased.
Sewage and water run-off from the site will present difficulties.
School facilities are currently at their limit.
Residents have difficulties accessing doctors and NHS dentists and some have to go outside the Parish for treatment.
The site should be removed.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17987

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Cornard Mere SSSI

Full text:

Please note, we have the same comments for allocations LA039,LA040 and LA042. A nearby SSSI site (Cornard Mere) holds biological interest to Natural England – adverse conditions identified with existing water quality, levels of abstraction and siltation concerns which could be exacerbated by new developments. The site is influenced by both groundwater and surface water – and how water arrives and moves across the site. Any new developments may influence surface water runoff, water quality and increased siltation from urban run-off. SuDS during construction and operational phases of the development should be promoted. These should ensure that they have the necessary treatment stages in place to ensure no damage is done to the natural environment.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18302

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

Nearby Rights of Way should be protected and enhanced to enable access to the countryside and enable active transport.
Add: An archaeological assessment and measures for managing impacts on archaeological remains are provided.
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 prior extraction or use of the mineral on site is appropriate.
Policy should require a transport assessment to determine existing and projected capacity and any mitigation required. It is recommended the IDP includes more detail on the requirements for the site. Footway improvements should be a policy requirement.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18974

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Dr David Taylor

Representation:

OBJECT.
Environment; very important habitat for birds, insects and flowers will be lost.
Landscape; housing here would intrude into open countryside and the skyline.
Amenity; the grassland immediately above Shawlands Wood is much used for walking and has outstanding views over the town and Stour valley.
Scale; This number of houses is not needed by local people and there is insufficient infrastructure.

Full text:

POLICY LA042 Land at Tye Farm

OBJECT.
Environment; very important habitat for birds, insects and flowers will be lost.
Landscape; housing here would intrude into open countryside and the skyline.
Amenity; the grassland immediately above Shawlands Wood is much used for walking and has outstanding views over the town and Stour valley.
Scale; This number of houses is not needed by local people and there is insufficient infrastructure.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19119

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Agent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd.

Representation:

Insert a new paragraph (below healthcare provision) as follows:
IX. Contributions, to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.
Provision of additional Household Waste Recycling to become paragraph X.
Provision of two vehicular access points from Shawlands Avenue to become paragraph XI.
Provision of multiple accesses to footway network to Sudbury to become paragraph XII.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19706

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Mee

Representation:

Object for - Increased surface water flood risk to lower lying areas of Great Cornard, Infrastructure/local services, vehicular access and area traffic volumes. I cannot see how destroying circa 150 acres of local countryside and introducing numerous additional polluting vehicles can possibly fall within your Plan Vision of enhancing and protecting the environment. One of the used homes on the Woodland Rise development is being marketed by a local estate agent as having 'Stunning countryside on your doorstep'. Not for long if if your plan to make Great Cornard even Greater goes ahead.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments: