Wherstead - Bourne Hill

Showing comments 1 to 3 of 3

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18365

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Louise Wakefield

Representation:

Our location in the middle of Bourne Hill is a rural location, and has been, for over 500 years. Our homes were previously owned by notorious historic figures such as Cardinal Wolsey and Edward Coke. Our dwellings are extremely different to those that line the rest of Bourne Hill. We therefore do not want to be incorporated into the settlement boundary, which would then make it easier to build around these historic buildings, altering their historic appearance for future generations.

Full text:

Myself and my neighbours have previously wrote to ensure that our settlement boundary is not changed. However, despite it appears our comments have gone unnoticed and your current joint local plan shows us being included in the boundary. Our location in the middle of Bourne Hill is a rural location, and has been, for over 500 years. Our homes were previously owned by notorious historic figures such as Cardinal Wolsey and Edward Coke. Our dwellings are extremely different to those that line the rest of Bourne Hill. We therefore do not want to be incorporated into the settlement boundary, which would then make it easier to build around these historic buildings, altering their historic appearance for future generations. I refer to your diagram LA016. We are open to have a planning officer visit us to discuss the matter.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18470

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Robin Coates

Representation:

Reference to email, Robert Hobbs to Robin Coates identifying typo on page 32:
‘The reference to a hamlet on page 272 is an editorial error and the classification should be as per that shown on page 32. Apologies for any confusion caused’. Robert Hobbs Corporate Manager – Strategic Planning

Full text:

Dear Joint Local Plan Consultation team,

I would like to request that following comments are considered as part of the consultation on the JLP , version July 2019.

1) Settlement classification – Ipswich Fringe:

Wherstead Park (LA101) on pages 274 and 275 is classified as Ipswich Fringe, whereas the rest of the village to the South, covering The Street, Vicarage Lane etc. is countryside. It would be more logical in my view to end the ‘Ipswich Fringe’ classification at the A14 boundary as it forms a natural break in the landscape.
Removing Wherstead Park from the Ipswich Fringe classification would not affect the viability of development of LA101 and the Wherstead Park site, as this is already identified within the plan as a strategic employment site.

2) Wherstead Park RAMS:
As stated on Page 274, Wherstead falls within the Recreation Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy, RAMS area of influence, however, I believe that the creation of any new dwelling(s) within Wherstead would still need to be fully compliant with the relevant policies set out in the JLP. It is not clear from the statement on page 274 that this is the case. I therefore request that the second paragraph on page 274 (Wherstead Park (Ipswich Fringe)) should be modified to ensure it is clear that whilst contributions will be sought for all new developments, including new dwellings, that they will be subject to the relevant policies of the JLP.

3) Listed Status:

The map on p275 of the JLP (Wherstead Park) identifies all the listed properties, but fails to show the wall around the walled field (within LA101) to the North of the Street as being listed, I understand the wall which formed the boundary to the Mansion’s Kitchen garden is grade II listed and should therefore be shown as such on the map.

4) Settlement Hierarchy - Countryside:

The settlement hierarchy (SP03) in the JLP does not state that countryside is at the very bottom of the settlement hierarchy and will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. This aspect of the settlement hierarchy must be clearly stated to avoid confusion and ambiguity.

5) Retail and Leisure development focus (Policy SP05, Para 9.25):

Focussing retail and leisure development on core and Hinterland villages, must be done sympathetically to those villages, disproportionately loading these villages with retail and leisure facilities could destroy the character of an existing village by swamping it with retail and/or leisure facilities. The clause should be modified to emphasise the importance that this type of development in or adjacent to core and hinterland villages must be proportionate so that the existing character is not overwhelmed.
6) Wherstead: Hamlet reference on page 32:

Reference to email, Robert Hobbs to Robin Coates identifying typo on page 32:
‘The reference to a hamlet on page 272 is an editorial error and the classification should be as per that shown on page 32. Apologies for any confusion caused’. Robert Hobbs Corporate Manager – Strategic Planning

7) Wherstead - Bourne Hill page 272.

The wording of LA016 states that ‘Approximately 75 dwellings’. My understanding of the permission granted for the Klondyke development is for a maximum of 75 dwellings. The wording in LA016 should be modified to reflect that this is a maximum.


Regards

Robin Coates

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19832

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Burnt Wood Ltd

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

Representation:

Page 272 provides details of an allocation LA016. This is the 75 unit scheme which has planning permission at
Land west of Bourne Hill, Wherstead (LPA Ref. DC/18/00706). It could therefore more appropriately be described as a commitment rather than an allocation.

Page 273 provides a single map for Wherstead. It only shows the area at Bourne Hill and fails to show the full
extent of the settlement including the area which lies to the south of the A14. This should be included to show
the extent of the strategic employment area at Wherstead and the Orwell Food Enterprise Zone.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments: