Badwell Ash - Long Thurlow

Showing comments 1 to 4 of 4

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16367

Received: 29/08/2019

Respondent: Mrs Diana Chapman

Representation:

I object to the development of site ref. SS0558 proposed in the SHELAA (July 2019) and included within the new southern settlement boundary immediately to the west of Rowan Cottage.


My reasons are:

Unsustainable location
Cumulative impact when taken with sites to the north of Long Thurlow Rd.
Impact on historic settlement form
Impact on listed buildings
Removal of wildlife corridor
Loss of productive agricultural land
Potential impact on surface water flooding.
Need to carefully design vehicular access to the proposed development site, including precluding inappropriate future development.

Full text:

I object to the classification of Long Thurlow as a Hamlet and to the proposed settlement boundary as shown in the “Preferred Options (Reg 18) report of July 2019.

Ideally the current classification as open county-side should be retained.

However, should it be decided that Long Thurlow is a sustainable location for additional residential development warranting designation as a Hamlet in the new Local Plan, I object to the proposed settlement boundary.

The Grade II Listed Buildings in Long Thurlow illustrate the sporadic pattern of development. Currently, despite limited 20th Century infilling, open fields provide a rural backdrop for most of these important buildings.

However, in the case of Rowan Cottage this would be lost with the development of site ref. SS0558 proposed in the proposed SHELAA (July 2019) and included within the new southern settlement boundary immediately to the west of Rowan Cottage.

The SHELAA identified certain constraints.

These I concur with and would set out the following concerns:


• Long Thurlow is not a sustainable location served by public transport, nor are there nearby supporting local facilities and infrastructure.

• New residents would be reliant on cars to travel.

• Combined with other proposed sites to the north of Long Thurlow Road the impact would be disproportionate to this small community.

• Impact on the historic form of this part of the settlement


• Impact on heritage assets. Ie listed buildings, in particular Rowan Cottage.

• Potential impact of new development on surface water flooding, in particular on Long Thurlow Road. Flash flooding is more prevalent now as global warming impacts on our weather.


• Removal of a wildlife corridor. There are bats, hares, amphibians, mammals, and many bird species including sky larks, woodpeckers and barn owls crossing this currently green corridor north to south.

• Loss of Good Quality agricultural land, currently in year round arable cultivation.


• Should all or part of this site be developed, vehicular access would need to be carefully designed in terms of safety, noise, pollution, disturbance and precluding further inappropriate development in the future. The access to and ease of farming any land left after partial development would also need further consideration.

• The proposed site area is estimated at 0.4 Hectares, this seems inadequate for 10 dwellings fronting Long Thurlow Road.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16373

Received: 29/08/2019

Respondent: Mr Roy Barker

Representation:

SS0558. The settlement boundary could be enlarged to the south of the main road through the Hamlet to take in all the small agricultural field with it,s rear hedge as the boundary. and Not splitting the field in two making the rear half none productive from a farming aspect.( similar to SS0809 the otherside of the road.) Any new passed planning application should be included in the red line.( Hutchins One)

Full text:

These are my personnel views on the new Joint Plan (July 2019). have been a district councillors for 16 years and involved in planning for all those years , I hope my comments will been given some weight!!.
Following the consultation event at Elmswell. my comments are as following.

General.
1.I was please that cluster of housing within the countryside, is welcomed by the district councils, although It has to be defined in the document please.
2.the other general point is old inactive farmsteads should be considered for limited housing as there is small number of sites that could take some small developments without any advise effect to the countryside and this would also support the local service centres.
3.Agricultural is hardly mention in the document, it is one of the main drivers of the economy in the two districts . 'a thriving agriculture is a thriving countryside '
4.Would be great. if the Elmswell Relieve Road was mentioned in the document.

Parishes of the old Badwell Ward.
Badwell Ash.
Page 285. Happy with the settlement boundary, but should be enlarged to take in recent passed planning applications. (Broadway and old gravel pit site Hunston road.)
Page 286. SS0558. The settlement boundary could be enlarged to the south of the main road through the Hamlet to take in all the small agricultural field with it,s rear hedge as the boundary. and Not splitting the field in two making the rear half none productive from a farming aspect.( similar to SS0809 the otherside of the road.) Any new passed planning application should be included in the red line.( Hutchins One)
Finningham.
Welcome the redundant farmstead (Street Farm) included in the red line (SS 0380). support the division of the arable field(SS0380).
Great Ashfield.
Fully welcome the settlement boundary,within the village. only suggestion would be to include the garden section of Hatton cottage, Church Green within the red line.
Hunston.
Welcome SS0815 being included in the red line.
Langham
Welcome the settlement Boundary.
Stowlangtoft.
Welcome a settlement Boundary (Kiln Lane,page 406). Please include any recent passed application within the red line (Street Farm).
Westhorpe
Welcome the settlement Boundary. SS0084 could be extended to the back hedge line. where the Sewer crosses the field behind the hedge line. It is dividing the field making the rear area none farmingable ( if there is such a word!!) SS0738. should be extended to be able to take a estate development and not roadside lineal development.
Wyverstone
No change. But should take in recent passed application. (Winchester House application)

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16425

Received: 04/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian Barker

Representation:

Being a linear hamlet, I agree with the draft settlement boundary. Three potential development sites have been included with road frontage, which would be in keeping with the rest of the linear village appearance. With demand for housing across the whole MS district being high I accept some development will happen in locations like this and I would support it but all options must be considered on their own merit. Any future residential property applications should be considered if it is seen to be in tune with the rest of the village appearance.

Full text:

Being a linear hamlet, I agree with the draft settlement boundary.

Three potential development sites have been included with road frontage, which would be in keeping with the rest of the village. The road is wide and has direct routes to other larger settlements which have local services like Elmswell, Badwell Ash and Bacton. It is also in a good state of repair.

Three areas are included which could sustain development; One a disused farmyard and farm buildings, a disused horse paddock and a small part of arable land. All I think should be considered on their own merit. The horse paddock is currently disused and offers little in way of biodiversity given its current upkeep, the farmyard is falling into disrepair and is only used as a holding area at times throughout the year for the odd machine or agricultural product. The arable field is small and in today's agricultural world is inefficient to actually grow crops on due to the size of the parcel and close proximity to residential property. It is has little biodiversity worth while in arable rotation given the close location to houses, gardens and road. Any wildlife would choose to utilise the open farmland stretching out in all other directions from the village.

With demand for housing across the whole MS district being high I accept some development will happen in locations like this and I would support it but all options must be considered on their own merit. Any future residential property applications should be considered if it is seen to be in tune with the rest of the village appearance.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19043

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: The Barker Family

Agent: Brooks Leney

Representation:

Long Thurlow is characterised as a Mid Suffolk Hamlet Village, defined as such due to the results of a weighted scoring system used to indicate the relative sustainability of villages. As such, it has been accepted that Long Thurlow is a sustainable location for a proportion of development. Site is in a sustainable location with access to a range of facilities and services within the nearby village of Badwell Ash. The village hosts a bus stop, with services running between Bury St Edmunds and
Diss allowing access to the wider transport network. Development is sustainable and delivers a natural infill, well related to the built-form of Long Thurlow.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments: