LA051 - Land between The Street and A143, Botesdale and Rickinghall

Showing comments 1 to 20 of 20

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16394

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Miss Lesley Farrer

Representation:

My objection focuses on the associated infrastructure:
1. Sufficient utilities - drainage, refuge collection, shops?
2. Increase in traffic from site 2 cars per house = 200 exiting onto Rickinghall Road + travelling through village to reach schools/health centre
3. The health centre has been expanded where would further expansion be located? Where would doctors etc come from.
4. Where would a pre school be located - must be near school
5. Older community - what % will be bungaloos? Will they be affordable.
6. What contribution are these residents going to give to the village and its 'community'. A bus service !!! Community police.

Full text:

Please see attachment.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16395

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lesley C Greenhough

Representation:

No to housing on LA051, put new school/new pre-school/community hall incorporating museum, local history. Playing fields. Possible new Co-op.

Full text:

See attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16397

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Anita Burhard

Representation:

Do not agree with the following:
LA049
LA051 being agreed
Social housing essential. Could be built on LA051.

Full text:

Do not agree with the following:
LA049
LA051 being agreed.
Social housing essential. Could be build on LA051

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16398

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Miss Lynn Talbert

Representation:

Having been aware of the neighbourhood plan, from its inception to its current status, I am a little surprised to see the above extra potential development site on the joint local plan.
It is all well and good to say that more money will be spent on utilities, amenities etc but ... drainage, the health centre, the co-op, refuse collection etc are all working to their full potential!

Full text:

Having been aware of the neighbourhood plan, from its inception to its current status, I am a little surprised to see the above extra potential development site on the joint local plan.
It is all well and good to say that more money will be spent on utilities, amenities etc but ... drainage, the health centre, the co-op, refuse collection etc are all working to their full potential!

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16399

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mr C. Greenhough

Representation:

This area was previously designated for light industrial now domestic. Botesdale Health Centre is now oversubscribed and cramped for space. Doctors have expressed the view that the healthcare should take over the school site and build a new school on LA051. The local plan should allow for this option.
The site has easy access to both the village street and the bypass so service vehicles could easily access the school without using The Street.
Developing this site for community use should also allow the option of relocating one or both village halls to the site.

Full text:

This area was previously designated for light industrial now domestic. Botesdale Health Centre is now oversubscribed and cramped for space. Doctors have expressed the view that the healthcare should take over the school site and build a new school on LA051. The local plan should allow for this option.
The site has easy access to both the village street and the bypass so service vehicles could easily access the school without using The Street.
Developing this site for community use should also allow the option of relocating one or both village halls to the site.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16400

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Diana Maywhort

Representation:

Until January 2019 we were informed that about 200 new houses were required in our 'Core Village' in the next 20 years. The neighbourhood plan was discussed accordingly. This was submitted in January and have gone to examination with the referendum due in the next couple of months. In July we were suddenly informed that 100 extra houses are required on LA051. AECOM and the assessment said houses should not be built on this site, or at the most 10. Where they are planned means that only green space seen from The Street will be built upon. Three hundred houses is a vast increase on two hundred.

Full text:

Until January 2019 we were informed that about 200 new houses were required in our 'Core Village' in the next 20 years. The neighbourhood plan was discussed accordingly. This was submitted in January and have gone to examination with the referendum due in the next couple of months. In July we were suddenly informed that 100 extra houses are required on LA051. AECOM and the assessment said houses should not be built on this site, or at the most 10. Where they are planned means that only green space seen from The Street will be built upon. Three hundred houses is a vast increase on two hundred.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16401

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mrs J. E. Sheehan

Representation:

I find it is very difficult for people to drive through the village, apart from the middle of the day, due to the number of cars parked along the street, especially near to the war memorial due to various food outlets, and in the area where Garden House Lane meets the street due to lack of parking off road.
The pharmacy at the Doctor's surgery cannot cope with the numbers of prescriptions at the moment. It will be difficult with extra houses built in the villages without the infrastructure.

Full text:

I find it is very difficult for people to drive through the village, apart from the middle of the day, due to the number of cars parked along the street, especially near to the war memorial due to various food outlets, and in the area where Garden House Lane meets the street due to lack of parking off road.
The pharmacy at the Doctor's surgery cannot cope with the numbers of prescriptions at the moment. It will be difficult with extra houses built in the villages without the infrastructure.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16402

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: John Abraham

Representation:

LA051 is dropped on us at last minute. The The land was originally described as amenities not housing ie new school needed.

Full text:

LA051 is dropped on us at last minute. The The land was originally described as amenities not housing ie new school needed.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16403

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mrs Linda Giles

Representation:

Disproportionate development - size and character
Proposal counter to the Neighbourhood Plan's assessment
Drainage and flood risk

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16405

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mr R. Giles

Representation:

Land drainage and flooding
Increased traffic along street
Increased pressure on health centre/school
Change of outlook.

Full text:

See attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16406

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert G Clark

Representation:

Having seen and commented on the original draft plan for Rickinghall and Botesdale I strongly object to the subsequent addition of this site for housing. The villages infrastructure can in no way support a further c.250 people, or the very nature of the community would be at risk of overdevelopment.

Full text:

Having seen and commented on the original draft plan for Rickinghall and Botesdale I strongly object to the subsequent addition of this site for housing. The villages infrastructure can in no way support a further c.250 people, or the very nature of the community would be at risk of overdevelopment.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16407

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Ms S M Emerson

Representation:

100 dwellings is too high a density for proposed site, and will cause further traffic/sight/lack of vision problems on The Street in Rickinghall. I am not confident that there is scope for increased infrastructure services at, for example the school and health centre. parking at the Health Centre is already extremely difficult, with no scope to increase parking.

Full text:

100 dwellings is too high a density for proposed site, and will cause further traffic/sight/lack of vision problems on The Street in Rickinghall. I am not confident that there is scope for increased infrastructure services at, for example the school and health centre. parking at the Health Centre is already extremely difficult, with no scope to increase parking.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17032

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Nick Free

Representation:

What is the point of us, as tax paying citizens, spending the last couple of years working diligently in our community to support the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan, all consult on it to help shape how we would like our villages, only for you to ignore us, the people, and ride roughshod over our opinions to hit us with a 'surprise' 100 extra houses on a piece of land outside of the scope of the boundaries to the village and not recognised in the NH Plan!? What a joke.

Full text:

What is the point of us, as tax paying citizens, spending the last couple of years working diligently in our community to support the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan, all consult on it to help shape how we would like our villages, only for you to ignore us, the people, and ride roughshod over our opinions to hit us with a 'surprise' 100 extra houses on a piece of land outside of the scope of the boundaries to the village and not recognised in the NH Plan!? What a joke.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17088

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

Representation:

SPS objects to the inclusion of this site. This site is not included in the adopted Botesdale and Rickinghall Neighbourhood Plan. It is on a greenfield site within the setting of the conservation area and a number of listed buildings.

SPS objects to the term ‘close setting’ which is not helpful in protecting the significance of heritage assets which may have extensive settings contributing to their significance. Should be replaced with ‘setting’ as the extent of an asset's setting and contribution it makes to its significance should be assessed for each proposal.

Full text:

SPS objects to the inclusion of this site. This site is not included in the adopted Botesdale and Rickinghall Neighbourhood Plan. It is on a greenfield site within the setting of the conservation area and a number of listed buildings.

SPS objects to the use of the term ‘close setting of heritage assets’ within the policies accompanying the site allocations. It is unclear what the term ‘close setting’ refers to but it is not helpful in protecting the significance of heritage assets which may have extensive settings which contribute to the significance of the asset. The term is not compliant with the NPPF para 194 or Historic England Guidance Note The Setting of Heritage Assets Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition). ‘Close setting’ should be replaced with ‘setting’ as the extent of an asset's setting and the contribution it makes to the significance of a heritage asset should be assessed for each proposal.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17481

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Rickinghall Parish Council

Agent: Ian Poole

Representation:

The allocation is totally unjustified and the Parish Council objects to the allocation for the following reasons:
1 - Detrimental impact on the landscape and important views identified in the Neighbourhood Plan Landscape Appraisal and the Council's Conservation Area Appraisal;
2 - Potential for significant harm to be caused to adjoining designated heritage assets;
3 - Lack of natural boundaries to the site;
4 - The allocation totally disregards the advanced stage of the Neighbourhood Plan; and
5 - It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, supported by robust evidence, that the housing is required in the period to 2036.

Full text:

Policy LA051 proposes the allocation of 4 hectares of land south of The Street for 100 homes. The allocation is totally unjustified and the Parish Council objects to the allocation for the following reasons:
i) It fails to recognise the important landscape characteristics of the area identified in the Landscape Character Appraisal produced in support of the Neighbourhood Plan. The ground rises up away from The Street and any residential development on this land will have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape. The Landscape Character concluded that “much of this landscape should remain open, providing a valuable rural setting to the settlement, ensuring that the settlement retains its valley side location and sense of place.”

ii) The Neighbourhood Plan identifies important views from The Street into the site and from the high ground to the south into the village centre. Both would be lost as a result of this allocation.

iii) The Council’s own Conservation Area Appraisal notes that “Views from the countryside are important and can be glimpsed through many gaps between the buildings along The Street”. The site entrance from The Street represents one of the most significant of these views.

iv) There are no natural boundaries to the site proposed, thereby requiring the establishment of a new boundary which will, if natural, take some years to establish resulting in a short to medium term significant detrimental impact on the landscape;

v) The site primarily adjoins the Conservation Area, with the access from The Street being within it. Adjoining this access is the Grade II Listed former White Horse PH, while the Grade II Listed Stanwell House also adjoins the site and the Grade II Listed The Old Chequers is located immediately opposite. The development of this site is therefore likely to have a significant detrimental impact on designated heritage assets. A previous Mid Suffolk SHELAA assessment of the site concluded that “Further investigation is needed on the impact upon the adjoining Conservation Area” while the 2019 SHELAA waters down this conclusion by stating that there would be “potential impact upon Conservation Area and heritage assets.”
The Neighbourhood Plan Site Assessment, independently undertaken by AECOM in 2017, concluded “If only infill development on the empty plot on the High Street was developed then the linear character of this part of the village would be retained. This would maintain the existing landscape character of the area. As a result, even though the SHELAA recommends a capacity of 100, we feel a maximum of 10 would be much more suitable for the site. Any development would need to take account of impact upon adjacent heritage assets”.
vi) The proposed allocation totally disregards the advanced stage of the Neighbourhood Plan; and
vii) It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, supported by robust evidence, that the housing is required in the village in the period to 2036.
Our objection therefore provides strong evidence that the significant harm caused by the development of this site on both heritage assets and the landscape is not outweighed by the benefits of delivering additional housing as there is no requirement to allocate additional sites for housing in Botesdale and Rickinghall.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17484

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Botesdale Parish Council

Agent: Ian Poole

Representation:

The allocation is totally unjustified and the Parish Council objects to the allocation for the following reasons:
1 - Detrimental impact on the landscape and important views identified in the Neighbourhood Plan Landscape Appraisal and the Council's Conservation Area Appraisal;
2 - Potential for significant harm to be caused to adjoining designated heritage assets;
3 - Lack of natural boundaries to the site;
4 - The allocation totally disregards the advanced stage of the Neighbourhood Plan; and
5 - It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, supported by robust evidence, that the housing is required in the period to 2036.

Full text:

Policy LA051 proposes the allocation of 4 hectares of land south of The Street for 100 homes. The allocation is totally unjustified and the Parish Council objects to the allocation for the following reasons:
i) It fails to recognise the important landscape characteristics of the area identified in the Landscape Character Appraisal produced in support of the Neighbourhood Plan. The ground rises up away from The Street and any residential development on this land will have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape. The Landscape Character concluded that “much of this landscape should remain open, providing a valuable rural setting to the settlement, ensuring that the settlement retains its valley side location and sense of place.”

ii) The Neighbourhood Plan identifies important views from The Street into the site and from the high ground to the south into the village centre. Both would be lost as a result of this allocation.
iii) The Council’s own Conservation Area Appraisal notes that “Views from the countryside are important and can be glimpsed through many gaps between the buildings along The Street”. The site entrance from The Street represents one of the most significant of these views.
iv) There are no natural boundaries to the site proposed, thereby requiring the establishment of a new boundary which will, if natural, take some years to establish resulting in a short to medium term significant detrimental impact on the landscape;
v) The site primarily adjoins the Conservation Area, with the access from The Street being within it. Adjoining this access is the Grade II Listed former White Horse PH, while the Grade II Listed Stanwell House also adjoins the site and the Grade II Listed The Old Chequers is located immediately opposite. The development of this site is therefore likely to have a significant detrimental impact on designated heritage assets. A previous Mid Suffolk SHELAA assessment of the site concluded that “Further investigation is needed on the impact upon the adjoining Conservation Area” while the 2019 SHELAA waters down this conclusion by stating that there would be “potential impact upon Conservation Area and heritage assets.”
The Neighbourhood Plan Site Assessment, independently undertaken by AECOM in 2017, concluded “If only infill development on the empty plot on the High Street was developed then the linear character of this part of the village would be retained. This would maintain the existing landscape character of the area. As a result, even though the SHELAA recommends a capacity of 100, we feel a maximum of 10 would be much more suitable for the site. Any development would need to take account of impact upon adjacent heritage assets”.
vi) The proposed allocation totally disregards the advanced stage of the Neighbourhood Plan; and
vii) It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, supported by robust evidence, that the housing is required in the village in the period to 2036.
Our objection therefore provides strong evidence that the significant harm caused by the development of this site on both heritage assets and the landscape is not outweighed by the benefits of delivering additional housing as there is no requirement to allocate additional sites for housing in Botesdale and Rickinghall.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17495

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council - Corporate Property

Representation:

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing in response to the BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (Reg 18) document. I am representing Suffolk County Council, who are owners of the land identified for development under Allocation LA051, in Rickinghall. I am writing to confirm this land is available and that we intend to bring this site forward for development.

An initial piece of feasibility work has recently been performed by Property Consultants, to confirm the suitability of the land for development, and to look at considerations such as policy, landscape, drainage, access and layout.

Overall we are supportive of this allocation and look forward to working with BMSDC on next steps.

Full text:

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing in response to the BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (Reg 18) document. I am representing Suffolk County Council, who are owners of the land identified for development under Allocation LA051, in Rickinghall. I am writing to confirm this land is available and that we intend to bring this site forward for development.

An initial piece of feasibility work has recently been performed by Property Consultants, to confirm the suitability of the land for development, and to look at considerations such as policy, landscape, drainage, access and layout.

Overall we are supportive of this allocation and look forward to working with BMSDC on next steps.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18309

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

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.
Inclusion of right of way in the policy is welcome. It is recommend the desired outcomes of retaining and enhancing the rights of way are within the policy. "Public Rights of Way should be retained and enhanced to enable access to the countryside and active transport."

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18554

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Site lies behind the single row of properties forming the southern edge of the settlement along The Street, several of which are Grade II listed. The open nature of the land to the rear of these properties is important to the significance of the individual buildings and the wider setting and character of the conservation area. We welcome the reference to these assets and their setting in the Policy, but suggest this could be strengthened by listing the relevant assets and requiring that development should be designed to conserve and where appropriate enhance this listed building and its setting.
In addition a number of archaeological finds have been located within the vicinity of Botesdale; these varied finds were distributed in clusters in the village itself and in its environs. Whilst none of the finds resulted in any scheduling their presence suggest further archaeological potential which should accommodated in the policy.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19134

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Agent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd.

Representation:

Insert a new paragraph (below healthcare provision) as follows:
VIII. Contributions, to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.
Provision of additional Household Waste Recycling to become paragraph IX.
Provision of footway crossing improvements and traffic calming measures to become
paragraph X.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments: