LA056 - Land south of Low Road, Debenham

Showing comments 1 to 9 of 9

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17995

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Flood Risk from Cherry Tree Watercourse.

Full text:

As stated in our previous response, part of potential development area is at risk from flooding from Cherry Tree Watercourse. We are concerned that the Joint Local Plan proposes 35 residential dwellings on a site with flood risk constraints without any comments on how this risk is to be avoided or mitigated.
The plan must ensure that the potential development area is either edited to exclude it from the area at flood risk or the policy clearly states that development is sequentially sited in this area, while ensuring that as part of the development natural flood management is included to reduce future flood risk. We note that this is quite a constrained site and may need to work in conjunction with site allocation LA057 to achieve any significant mitigation of flood risk. Please see our comments regarding upstream attenuation below.
You must ensure that the potential development area is either edited to exclude it from the area at flood risk or the policy clearly states that development is sequentially sited in this area, while ensuring that as part of the development natural flood management is included to reduce future flood risk.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18009

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Debenham Parish Council

Representation:

Strongly support the preferred options that relate to Debenham
These options are in accordance with the adopted Debenham NP which were arrived at following expert analysis, wide public consultation and independent scrutiny by a Government appointed examiner.

Full text:

Strongly support the preferred options that relate to Debenham
These options are in accordance with the adopted Debenham NP which were arrived at following expert analysis, wide public consultation and independent scrutiny by a Government appointed examiner.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18064

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Agent: Pippa Short

Representation:

See attached representation

Full text:

See attached representation

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18066

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Agent: Pippa Short

Representation:

See attached representation

Full text:

See attached representation

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18313

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

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.
In addition to the criteria set out in the Debenham Neighbourhood Plan, this site will require a transport Statement

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18560

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

sites have the potential to impact upon the setting of several nearby grade II listed building including the 20 Low Road, Cherry Tree Inn, Malting Farmhouse, and Cherry Tree Farmhouse. These two sites could also impact upon the southernmost tip of the Debenham Conservation Area. The presence of these heritage assets, the conservation area and their settings should be reflected in the Policy, and suggest the inclusion of a new criterion which makes reference to the any listed buildings which may be protected (listing them) as well as the conservation area , and a requirement that development should be designed to conserve and where appropriate enhance these listed buildings, the conservation area and their settings.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19141

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Agent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd.

Representation:

Insert new text after ‘Joint Local Plan Policies’, as follows:
…..Joint Local Plan policies, ‘the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan’, and Debenham Neighbourhood Plan (Policy DEB4).

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19753

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Representation:

We object to the allocation of land south of Low Road on the basis that the proposed allocation cannot deliver a sustainable form of development that supports a strong, vibrant and healthy community with accessible services that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being (NPPF, 2019, Paragraph 8), in line with the social objectives of the NPPF. We would challenge this proposed allocation on the same grounds as the sites north of Ipswich Road and east of Aspall Road, in relation to the level of infrastructure improvements that such development could contribute to.

Furthermore, the site cannot be considered suitable for allocation due to its lack of deliverability.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19813

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Representation:

We object to the allocation of land south of Low Road on the basis that the proposed allocation cannot deliver a sustainable form of development that supports a strong, vibrant and healthy community with accessible services that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being (NPPF, 2019, Paragraph 8), in line with the social objectives of the NPPF. We would challenge this proposed allocation on the same grounds as the sites north of Ipswich Road and east of Aspall Road, in relation to the level of infrastructure improvements that such development could contribute to. Furthermore, the site cannot be considered suitable for allocation due to its lack of deliverability.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response