LA016 - Land west of Borune Hill, Wherstead

Showing comments 1 to 10 of 10

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18276

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

Policy should require a transport assessment to determine existing and projected capacity and any mitigation required. The existing pedestrian access to the site is a narrow footway, which may require improvement.
Explanatory text to this policy should explain that policy MP9 and Policy MP10 of the SMWLP will apply to this site.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18471

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Robin Coates

Representation:

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.

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

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18551

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

The site is within the wider setting of two Grade II Listed Buildings (Ostrich Inn and No’s 1 and 2 Bourn Hall) which are located immediately to the east of the site, across the Bourn Hill road. We welcome the reference to the setting of these assets in the Policy, but suggest this could be strengthened by listing the assets within the text and 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.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19065

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investmenrt Management

Agent: Turley

Representation:

The Site lies almost entirely within flood zone 1. A small part of the Site along its north-western edge falls within flood zone 3, however this part of the site will remain undeveloped and used as open space.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19066

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investmenrt Management

Agent: Turley

Representation:

In addition to benefitting from adequate foul drainage capacity, the site is served by potable water, mains gas, electric and fibre with the relevant providers confirming sufficient capacity to provide for 75 new homes. There are no known technical constraints to bringing forward this site for housing in the short term.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19067

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investmenrt Management

Agent: Turley

Representation:

Due to the proximity of the Site to the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA, the application was supported by a Shadow HRA Screening Report which concluded that if the proposed mitigation measures were successfully implemented, the project would not adversely impact the Orwell or Stour Estuaries SPA. The proposed mitigation includes onsite public open space and SANGS, improving connectivity with nearby PROW and areas of public open space.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19068

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investmenrt Management

Agent: Turley

Representation:

The Site is not located within or adjacent to a conservation area. The closest listed buildings are that at No’s 1 & 2 Bourn Hall (Grade II) to the east of Bourne Hill and Oyster Reach PH at the junction of Bourne Hill and The Strand (Grade II). However the distance of these from the Site and the intervening development and screening between them is such that their setting will not be adversely affected.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19081

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Ipswich Borough Council

Representation:

Wherstead is a classified as a hamlet and is an area with limited public transport and no local services. There is some concern about the sustainability of this location for new development as residents will be reliant on private vehicles to access key services. In the preferred options joint plan the site sheet does not recognise the need for a travel plan or recognise the close relationship the site has to Ipswich. The Borough considers that the scale of development proposed is too large for this location on sustainability grounds. IBC considers that it is important that the impact on Ipswich residents needs to be mitigated and acknowledged by showing changes to the Site Sheet.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19129

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.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19428

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Stour & Orwell Society

Representation:

We are very concerned at the effect that such a major housing development will have both on the AONB itself and particularly the road infrastructure at the bottom of Bourne Hill and its roundabout junction. There are already quite severe tailbacks at peak periods and this housing will exacerbate them. We note that while the allocation states that the development should be
‘sympathetic’ to the AONB (paragraph II) there is no mention of the impact on the AONB in paragraph IV. At the very least we would like to see the AONB inserted so it is alongside the SPA and Ramsar Habitat Sites.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments: