Q5 (p13)

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 160

Comment

Representation ID: 2

Received: 22/08/2017

Respondent: Prof George Constantinides [854]

Representation:

Protecting the rural environment

Comment

Representation ID: 103

Received: 20/09/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sara Knight [2816]

Representation:

The Sudbury Western Relief Road

Comment

Representation ID: 164

Received: 23/09/2017

Respondent: Mr D C Warren [2766]

Representation:

Local infrastructure improved to deal with local development already approved. Any development should not swamp the local area and should as far as possible blend in. Where possible industrial development should be kept away from residential areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 355

Received: 27/09/2017

Respondent: Mr Phil Harrison [2905]

Representation:

Employment within a sensible and sustainable commute.

Support

Representation ID: 518

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings) [2992]

Representation:

RPC considers it essential that local views are adequately reflected in the decisions taken at District level.

Comment

Representation ID: 597

Received: 11/10/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Mockford [3075]

Representation:

The basic infrastructure should be improved before any further development is considered in the Drinkstone area. The key areas of concern regarding infrastructure are;
* Poor secondary road infrastructure
* The village does not have access to gas and therefore to continue to allow development a housing stock with oil (environmentally damaging) will not fulfil the requirements of the councils environmental strategy
* No local amenities

Comment

Representation ID: 788

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro) [3157]

Representation:

Fressingfield has only 350 houses in the central area of the village. We need to be sure that further development is sustainable and proportionate to the community and its 58 Listed Buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 914

Received: 17/10/2017

Respondent: Mr David Brown [2956]

Representation:

Elmswell will require a relief road in the very near future, especially if the plans to increase freight traffic come to fruition.

Comment

Representation ID: 930

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Roy Barker [3189]

Representation:

Small amount of housing growth and improved infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 1001

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake) [3182]

Representation:

housing to attract younger people, services especially transport and broadband, some retail to reduce car journeys.

Comment

Representation ID: 1017

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Simon Bell [3201]

Representation:

The need to balance housing development with appropriate infrastructure development to support sustainable development goals.

Comment

Representation ID: 1221

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer) [3234]

Representation:

To maintain the current tranquil and sedate pace of life in Raydon.
There is a strong need to support the growth of the village in a manner which protects the nature of the village whilst allowing more people to benefit from the location and amenities. This will provide financial and people support to the facilities within the village eg village hall. It will also bring new blood to the village noting the age profile demographic. It will also make the infrastructure links such as bus service more viable if there are more users of the service.

Comment

Representation ID: 1353

Received: 22/10/2017

Respondent: Ms Carole Skippen [2834]

Representation:

No light or fuel pollution, beautiful countryside and wildlife and clean air to breath.

Comment

Representation ID: 1360

Received: 23/10/2017

Respondent: Haughley Parish Council (Alf Hannan) [2986]

Representation:

Keeping the rural nature of Haughley Parish, protecting its heritage, managing the traffic, having high speed broadband throughout Haughley, Haughley Green and Haughley New Street

Comment

Representation ID: 1375

Received: 23/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Alf Hannan [3267]

Representation:

Keeping the rural nature of Haughley Parish and protecting its heritage. Traffic management and high speed broadband.

Comment

Representation ID: 1429

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Mr William Eaton [3288]

Representation:

Palgrave must remain a village.
To preserve a green buffer zone, to assure separation from neighbouring villages, and prevent Stuston and Diss encroachment
To maintain the village's rural character, protect special green spaces and important
countryside views

The basic infrastructure should be improved before any further development is considered.
Size and scale of future development must be in keeping with this "secondary" village character;
Footpaths and green spaces should be preserved and improved.
Concerns about increased traffic, and inadequate parking on our minor roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 1529

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt [3325]

Representation:

Drinkstone does not have the infrastructure in place to justify its scoring as a hinterland village. The pressing needs are better broadband coverage - some parts of the village do not have a useable broadband facility. The sewage and drainage infrastructure is only just coping with the current number of houses and needs to be upgraded before permission is granted for any additional houses. There is a shortage of smaller properties in the village and a better mix of housing stock should be encouraged.

Comment

Representation ID: 1637

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote) [3200]

Representation:

To protect and enhance environmental assets.

Comment

Representation ID: 1899

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote) [2849]

Representation:

Removing through traffic (rat running between the A143 and A1066 or avoiding the congested A1066 through Diss) from the centre of Palgrave, to improve the quality of life for and the safety of residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 1919

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Tania Farrow [3375]

Representation:

To support the future of the village by providing employment opportunities whilst protecting the environment and the local heritage.

Comment

Representation ID: 2012

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs) [3372]

Representation:

Basic infrastructure should be improved - access to broadband and upgrades to the sewage system and road network
The scale of any development takes into account the lack of amenities and poor infrastructure in the village
Clarity on the amount of development permitted on windfall sites. The cumulative effect of piecemeal development should be a material consideration in assessing applications for new housing.
There should be a cap on the number of windfall developments in any community dependent on the amenities and infrastructure present.
In a village with no mains gas, developers should be required to build energy efficient houses,

Comment

Representation ID: 2082

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Great Finborough Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell) [3413]

Representation:

Maintain identity and the means to support our infrastructure in a realistic fashion.

Comment

Representation ID: 2123

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes) [3422]

Representation:

Any development must be supported by infrastructure improvements, not just added on to our boundary. All local services must be able to cope with any growth, and housing should reflect the needs of our community, especially older residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 2348

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day) [3474]

Representation:

Fressingfield is in the most northern part of the MSDC district & happens to be one of the most rural parts of the region creating very specific and significant problems. These include:
Village identity. To allow the village to grow gradually, sustainably and whilst retaining its character
Sustainable, appropriate housing development.
Appropriate housing.
Improving infrastructure
Education - sufficient capacity within our local schools
Health. Recognize the need to grow healthcare adequately in proportion with village growth.
Public transport
Highways. Better roads to accommodate increased traffic.
Employment. appropriate local business development is essential to village viability.
Environment.
Safety of residents

Comment

Representation ID: 2350

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup) [3460]

Representation:

Chelmondiston area: Most important is protecting the village as a rural settlement. Numbers of additional dwellings should be appropriate to a hinterland parish (i.e. sufficient to meet local needs). The Shotley Peninsula has carried more than its fair share of recent development and basic infrastructure should be improved prior to any further developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 2412

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith) [3484]

Representation:

Preston St Mary is a hamlet and as such has very limited potential for growth. SS0491: The Parish Council consider that any proposed planning application for this plot of land should not exceed 6 homes. The Parish Council would like to see at least one of the properties out of the six be for affordable housing so that there is potential for existing residents family members to move into the village, who may otherwise be excluded purely on the basis of cost of property. Some of the single storey properties may be considered desirable as properties for local residents to purchase and remain in the village, and sell their own properties which may become more challenging in terms of stairs etc as they grow older.

Support

Representation ID: 2495

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples) [3500]

Representation:

Lindsey Parish Council has an expressed aim of ensuring development in Lindsey provides for regeneration and sustainability for the village. It must be incremental and in character with existing.

Comment

Representation ID: 2513

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Mayes [3509]

Representation:

There local infrastructure, in particular road capacity, is already struggling to meet demand, there is no way it can cope with these proposals without significant improvement.

The above applies in normal conditions, as soon as the Orwell Bridge closes, which it does regularly all the lanes in the village come to an immediate standstill.

Comment

Representation ID: 2523

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Michaela Chan [3486]

Representation:

To keep it a village, maintaining its individuality and identity and not develop it into yet another housing estate.

Comment

Representation ID: 2551

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed) [3431]

Representation:

Having regard to the character, spread of the built up area boundaries and settlements. Further, to consider the modest growth in development and employment, taking cognizance of the Cockfield local survey lodged with Babergh District Council.