Holton St Mary

Showing comments 1 to 5 of 5

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16277

Received: 18/08/2019

Respondent: Mr eriki Ellis

Representation:

I object to the extension of the settlement boundary NW of the existing boundary, any development would be detrimental to the surroundings and affect the setting of Grade 2 listed Holton Hall. A ribbon development infilling a large gap such as this is contra to Policy LP01. Building on this site would completely unbalance the current approach to the village and is out of proportion to the overall size of the village. Lack of public transport would force extra cars to use the sub standard A12 Junction and there is no footpath for the full length of the hamlet

Full text:

I object to the extension of the settlement boundary NW of the existing boundary, any development would be detrimental to the surroundings and affect the setting of Grade 2 listed Holton Hall. A ribbon development infilling a large gap such as this is contra to Policy LP01. Building on this site would completely unbalance the current approach to the village and is out of proportion to the overall size of the village. Lack of public transport would force extra cars to use the sub standard A12 Junction and there is no footpath for the full length of the hamlet

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16483

Received: 11/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Oliver Greene

Representation:

I object to the proposed extension of this hinterland village boundary to include SS0752, Land the North of the B1070. The site is totally unsuitable for development and would contravene Babergh's own policies, including LP01 and LP18. It was the subject of a planning application that was refused by Babergh in 2017; that refusal was upheld by the Inspectorate on 19th June 2019.
It would be, therefore, perverse if this unsuitable site were now to be included in the village boundary.
It should be noted that there is no proven housing need in Holton St Mary.

Full text:

I object to the proposed extension of this hinterland village boundary to include SS0752, Land the North of the B1070. The site is totally unsuitable for development and would contravene Babergh's own policies, including LP01 and LP18. It was the subject of a planning application that was refused by Babergh in 2017; that refusal was upheld by the Inspectorate on 19th June 2019.
It would be, therefore, perverse if this unsuitable site were now to be included in the village boundary.
It should be noted that there is no proven housing need in Holton St Mary.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16504

Received: 12/09/2019

Respondent: Dr Richard Appleton

Representation:

I object to the proposed / 'preferred' plan to include SS0752, agricultural land North of the B1070 in our village boundary for these reasons:
a) It contravenes Babergh's policies, including LP01 and LP18. SS0752 was subject to a planning application, refused by Babergh in 2017 and upheld on appeal by the Inspectorate in June 2019. It would be disingenious and illogical to now include this site within the boundary.
b) The site is unsuitable for any potential new development.
c) There is no proven housing need in our village.
d) There is inadequate infrastructure to support a new development.

Full text:

I object to the proposed / 'preferred' plan to include SS0752, agricultural land North of the B1070 in our village boundary for these reasons:
a) It contravenes Babergh's policies, including LP01 and LP18. SS0752 was subject to a planning application, refused by Babergh in 2017 and upheld on appeal by the Inspectorate in June 2019. It would be disingenious and illogical to now include this site within the boundary.
b) The site is unsuitable for any potential new development.
c) There is no proven housing need in our village.
d) There is inadequate infrastructure to support a new development.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16772

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Holton St Mary Parish Council

Representation:

The Settlement boundary should not be extended for the following reasons

• Findings of the earlier planning application and subsequent dismissal of appeal

• The visual approach to the core village is currently balanced.

• Very poor public transport links.

• B1070 junction with A12 is Sub Standard

A recent local housing needs survey has not shown need for development in Holton St Mary

The site does not meet Policy LP01 criteria 2a-d and 3
The site does not meet Policiy LP18 criteria 1a-d

Full text:

The Parish Council objects to the inclusion of new land located to the north west of the current settlement boundary.
Site History
Outline Planning applied for and refused 21/12/17
Decision Appealed 2018
Appeal dismissed 19/6/19

The site was put forward under SHLAA (SS0752) and both Babergh Planning and The Appeal Inspectorate were aware of this in their decision making processes to the above application and subsequent appeal, The 2019 site conclusions only states ‘The site is potentially considered suitable for residential development - as the site is only considered potentially suitable this does not mean automatic inclusion into the settlement boundary

A recent local housing needs survey has not shown need for development in Holton St Mary


The Settlement boundary should not be extended for the following reasons

• Findings of the earlier planning application and subsequent dismissal of appeal

• The visual approach to the core village is balanced – the inclusion of this site would unbalance the entrance to the village.

• Very poor public transport links make it impossible to reach Manningtree Station (6 miles) in under 2 hours and whilst Colchester and Ipswich are reachable in 40-50 minutes, the bus timings do not meet the current workplace needs – the development is therefore not sustainable

• B1070 junction with A12 is Sub Standard and the site has had a number of fatalities and frequent minor accidents


In considering any changes to the settlement boundary, the proposed Core Policies should be followed and this extension to the existing boundary should not be made as it does not adhere to the following policies:
Policy LP01 - Hamlets and Clusters of development in the Countryside.
1. Within the settlement boundary of identified hamlets the principle of development is acceptable.
2. Proposals for new dwellings located within small clusters of housing may be acceptable, subject to satisfying the following criteria:
a. Where it would not be detrimental to the character of the surroundings;
b. The scale of development consists of infilling by one dwelling or a pair of semi-detached dwellings within a continuous built up frontage;
c. It would not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the cluster or any harmful visual intrusion into the surrounding landscape; and
d. Particular care will be exercised in sensitive locations such as conservation areas and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and any other designated land. ( Holton Hall is a listed building)
3. Proposals which would consolidate sporadic or ribbon development or the infilling of large gaps or extending edges, will be resisted. The cumulative impact of proposals will be a major consideration as development should be proportionate to the location and context, having regard to the level of local infrastructure provision.
Conclusion : The site does not meet criteria 2a-d and 3


Policy LP18 - Landscape
1. The Councils will support: -
a. Development in suitable locations which will not adversely affect the natural environment including; landscape character sensitivity and visual impacts of the proposal on the wider area (including effects on health, living conditions);
b. New development that integrates positively with the existing landscape character of the area and reinforces the local distinctiveness.
c. Proposals that are sensitive to their landscape, visual or amenity impacts (including on dark skies); subject to siting, design, lighting, use of materials and colour, along with the mitigation of any adverse impacts;
d. Development that enhances and protects landscape value such as; locally characteristic landscape features, archaeological and historic patterns of settlement and land use and designations; being demonstrably informed by local guidance, in particular the Council’s Local Landscape Guidance, the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment.
Conclusion: The site does not meet policies 1a-d

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18704

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: A P T Philpot Ltd

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Representation:

Site is deliverable immediately, with limited constraints. Client supports a unified approach to the protection
of sensitive habitat areas through the RAMS strategy. Heritage and highways concerns identified in the SHELAA can easily be overcome. Site would not impact on nearby Class B Amenity Greenspace. The amendment to the settlement boundary as proposed at Holton St. Mary is fully supported by the evidence base prepared by the Council and we endorse the approach
of the LPA in this regard. Site could come forward before two years, following the plan process. Conscious of refused application and appeal for similar development and would comment that this was due to conflict with adopted policies and reasons did not cite any detriment of design or incompatibility with settlement.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments: