Elmswell

Showing comments 1 to 7 of 7

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16313

Received: 20/08/2019

Respondent: Mr Trevor Sadler

Representation:

Object to all proposed development, based upon woefully inadequate infrastructure within the village. Traffic has already reached unmanageable proportions, and walking on roads with on pavements is hazardous in the extreme. A good example is New Road, where pushing a pram, walking with children, cycling, are all dangerous activities in what is supposed to be a village road. Also the centre of the village near the co-op/station is frequently carnage when the barriers are down at the station. All very difficult to improve despite developers assurances.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16371

Received: 29/08/2019

Respondent: Mr Roy Barker

Representation:

Would be great. if the Elmswell Relieve Road was mentioned in the document.

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)

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17432

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Harrow Estates

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

Representation:

Object to the exclusion of site SS0662. Circumstances have changed since 2017 SHELAA with residential development now being delivered on adjacent site which suitable access can be achieved via two points as demonstrated by the current planning application. No objection raised by SCC Highways to planning application on site. Development on the site would form a logical extension to the settlement and would be within distance (approximately 0.8km) of the railway station and nearby shops and facilities.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17841

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Elmswell Parish Council

Representation:

Several of the SHELAA site submissions are discounted for reasons that no longer hold true, for example, the additional housing proposed as an extension to the Bacon Factory site (OL/19/03924) was not considered as there was no access. There is now access through the main development. Sites recently granted permission at Grove Lane and to the south of Field View on Ashfield Road should be included in the Settlement Bounday. Thenceforth, there should be no development at all sanctioned outside of the Settlement Boundary. Therefore, all but point 1 at LP01, should be struck out. For the avoidance of doubt, EPC opposes any and all development outside of the augmented Settlement Boundary.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17857

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Mansel

Representation:

Elmswell's infrastructure cannot support the proposed level of development in the vilage.

Full text:

There is too much development proposed for Elmswell for the level of existing infrastructure, and not enough additional infrastructure is proposed.
Elmswell primary school, even when expanded to cater for 420 pupils will not have sufficient places, and the proposal to provide a new school in Woolpit for Elmswell children is farcical for the 21st Century. We have acknowledged an Climate Emergency so we need to be able to provide primary schools within walking distance so that there is no need for parents to drive their children to school. Sending about 1/3 of the Elmswell Children to a school outside of the village will not generate good community cohesion. This proposal for a new school in Woolpit for Elmswell children is completely unsustainable.
The School Road/Church Road junction is already at capacity (with the current permissions already granted) and there is currently no satisfactory scheme of mitigation for this junction, and until some scheme can be agreed by all parties then Elmswell can take no further development.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18264

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Harrow estates

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

Representation:

Elmswell should be subject to a higher level of growth than currently assigned, there also exists concern regarding the suitability and deliverability of the sites proposed to be allocated.

Allocations should be reconsidered and JLP should positively seek to allocate additional sites like the Land west of the Former Bacon Factory.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19626

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

The opportunities for sustainable development in sustainable locations must be taken through the new Local Plan, especially as housing requirements for Babergh and Mid Suffolk are expected to increase significantly under the Government’s proposed standardised housing need methodology. As such, it is strongly recommended that land east of Eastern Way and north of Wetherden Road, Elmswell (SHELAA site ref: SS0915), is allocated for development.

Full text:

Land north of Church Road has the benefit of outline planning permission granted on appeal on 29 July 2019 (Mid Suffolk reference DC/17/05423; appeal reference APP/W3520/W/18/3209219). Endurance Estates consider that the site should be allocated for approximately 81 dwellings and that the settlement boundary be redrawn to include the site. This will clarify the site’s Development Plan status to applicants, the LPA and local stakeholders. This is required for the Plan to be effective.

Moreover, the Local Plan contains a number of inconsistencies in the approach to site allocations and settlement boundaries, in the settlement of Bacton as well as others. As a general point, a consistent approach is necessary. We suggest that:

• Sites which do not have planning permission are identified as Allocations and the settlement boundary extended around these sites;
• Sites which already have planning permission are identified as Existing Permissions or Commitments, and the settlement boundary extended around these sites;
• Sites which are not proposed for allocation, and which do not have planning permission, are excluded from the settlement boundary; and
• All new allocations and existing permissions to be listed in the housing trajectory.

Conclusion
Land north of Church Road, Bacton, has the benefit of outline planning permission. In common with the approach taken in the Local Plan to other sites with planning permission, Endurance Estates consider that the site should be allocated for approximately 81 dwellings and that the settlement boundary be redrawn to include the site.