Question 1

Document Sample
Question 1 Powered By Docstoc
					Item               ID / Name                Organisation



  152 Elizabeth Durrant         Town Clerk - Needham Market

  154   Mrs S Rose              Drinkstone Parish Council
  158   Derrick Wood
  159   K J Wilson
  160   J V Rogers
  161   Mrs Violet Calthorpe    Stowupland Parish Council
  164   F T A Dupuy




  166 Cllr Ron Walters          Debenham Parish Council



  168 Mrs Julia Waldron


  190 V Hall

  193 Mark Westwood             Mark Westwood Ltd.
  194 Mr P H Johnson

  196   Simon & Denise Dennis
  197   Mrs Gillian Ling
  198   Mrs R Farrow            Clerk - Barham Parish Council
  211   Mr B Nancekivell


  212 Mrs G Bailey


  214 C Ellis
  215 Martin & Lindsay Wood



  217 Mr & Mrs I Allard


  231 Mr & Mrs R Cope
233 Bridget Goodchild           Rattlesden Parish Council
                                Chairman - Bramford Parish Plan
235 Linda Scott                 Committee
237 Mrs V Couldridge            Chairman - Cotton Parish Council
238 Mrs V Couldridge            Chairman - Cotton Parish Council
                                Clerk - Old Newton with Dagworth &
239 Rachel Godbold              Gipping Parish Council
                                Queensgate Eye Residents'
240 D Chapman                   Association




252   David Lowe                EWS Chartered Surveyors
253   Mrs H Day
254   Mrs E P Barker
256   Christopher Roberts
257   Lesley Silvester          Clerk - Metfield Parish Council
259   Daniel Marsh
260   Dr Sandra Grantham Henn
271   Keith Welham


273 Roy Cook

274 John & Christine Aldous




276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)




276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)




276 Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)




276 Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)




276 Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)




276 Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
279 Tony Hutt


280   Anne Packer/Susan M Craggs   Debenham W    I
280   Anne Packer/Susan M Craggs   Debenham W    I
280   Anne Packer/Susan M Craggs   Debenham W    I
280   Anne Packer/Susan M Craggs   Debenham W    I




312 Tim & Suzy Monaghan



312 Tim & Suzy Monaghan


314 Matt Lally                     Matrix Partnership



315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb


316 Nicole Ker-Gibson




316 Nicole Ker-Gibson

316 Nicole Ker-Gibson

362 Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside

369 Julie Cross                    Andrew Martin Associates
385 Anthony M Breen




385 Anthony M Breen




385 Anthony M Breen




385 Anthony M Breen



398
                      Strutt and Parker
400
                      Strutt and Parker
           Type of Representation



Needham Market

Drinkstone



Stowupland




Debenham



Thorndon


Bramford

Stonham Aspal
Needham Market

Debenham
Onehouse & Stowmarket
Barham & Claydon
Bramford


Bramford


Cotton
Claydon



Debenham


Debenham
Rattlesden

Bramford
Cotton
Cotton

Old Newton with Dagworth & Gipping

Eye




Gt Blakenham
Laxfield
Laxfield
Debenham
Metfield
Gislingham
Eye
Stowupland


Thurston

Thorndon




Stowmarket




Stowmarket
Stowmarket




Stowmarket




Stowmarket




Stowmarket




Stowmarket
Debenham


Debenham
Debenham
Debenham
Debenham




Debenham



Debenham


Thurston



Debenham


Debenham




Debenham

Debenham

Botesdale

Needham Market
Needham Market




Needham Market




Needham Market




Needham Market



Pettaugh

Felsham
                                  Representation
Needham Market - In principal, the Town Council is only comfortable with
brown field development in the town. Current infrastructure is inadequate for
future development in the town. What is the justification behind the required
volumes of development?
Drinkstone - We are happy for Drinkstone to be classed as a village in the
countryside with limited development.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
The Section "Is there a need for the proposed development" in the "The list of
Criteria" should include "Has the local area still to successfully assimilate
recent large-scale developments?" This could be included in the Sustainability
Criteria as well.
Due to the historical nature of some settlement boundaries there are many
irregular shapes and, depending upon the abutting land, straightening some of
these boundaries would remove inefficencies of moving large equipment via
small spaces with the allied ecological benefit.
Any development should make the site better than it was before, not worse, in
terms of appearance, environment and ecology, otherwise it is not sustainable
and the site should not be selected.
Yes. KSC's and P.V. should all be on good accessible roads. They are not.
Debenham should not be further developed.
Yes.
Yes. Impact on the current community, and how any further development will
affect the sense of community.
No.
None.
Yes.
Yes - The cumulative effect of a number of developments in the area and
including neighbouring areas, on traffic generation, coalescene and urban
sprawl.

It's too restrictive. Cotton has vast access to services such as doctors, shop,
P.O., public transport links, public house, hardware and garden centre.
No.
The impact of a new development in Debenham would cause many problems
including flooding the sewer which is too small to cope, water drainage down
Cherry Tree Lane, schools too small and the doctors are already
overstretched.
Development of greenfield sites in Debenham Village with more houses and
rise in population will increase problems that are already here with flooding
sewers, water and drainage.
Rattlesden Parish Council would not wish to change or add to the suggested
list of criteria and site constraints.

No.
No.
No.

No.

No comment.
Sufficient land must be allocated for MSDC to contribute to provision of sites
serving the Haven Ports, particularly in the light of acknowledged congestion
problems between the Copdock Mill Interchange and the Port of Felixstowe.
Current proposals will need to be reviewed in the light of the findings of the
Felixstowe Port Related Study, which has just been commissioned (lead
authority SCDC).
The list of criteria and site constraints appears to be appropriate.
No additions or changes are necessary.
Site visits as opposed to desk top appraisals.
No. This is a comprehensive list.
No.
Yes.
No.

I believe there is a need for owner occupied and rented one and two bedroom
properties for the over 55's. Such properties to be connected to a helpline.
We think land in the centre of the village is ideal for a village - pub, shops,
school.


It is considered that the list of criteria proposed to be applied for the purposes
of selecting sites for allocation is broadly appropriate. It is however felt that
greater guidance should be given as to the manner in which the criteria will be
applied to this process. For instance the initial criterion of according with the
broad locations set out in the Core Strategy is considered to be of paramount
importance, as too is the weight that should be applied to the presence of
overriding constraints such as restrictive designations (e.g. SSSI/SLA/flood-risk)
which would rule out development altogether.


Furthermore, having assessed the Sustainability Appraisal Summary Document
produced by Suffolk County Council, we have a number of serous concerns
relating to the weight that should be given to this as a site selection tool.
The matrix produced by Mid Suffolk District Council for scoring the prospective
development sites is overly simplistic and therefore fundamentally flawed,
particularly in terms of its treatment of biodiversity issues. To score a minus if any
BAP habitat or species is known to be on the site completely fails to
differentiate between the presence of things like relatively common BAP
species (e.g. Song thrush, common toad etc.) and the much more important
species, such as European Protected Species (otter, dormouse, great crested
newts, bats etc.).



It is not surprising, given the system used, that any greenfield site is likely to be
scored downwards due to the likely presence of a BAP species. However, this is
inherently unfair and ultimately misleading because almost any site, including
the brownfield sites, could well contain a BAP species and this assessment does
not provide any real insight into the likely level of relative ecological impact at
these sites. It could well be argued that overall, large arable fields will be less
inviting to most wildlife and less diverse than much smaller patches of dense or
varied habitat
It is considered wrong to imply that site 9h would necessarily therefore be a less
preferable option from a nature conservation perspective. Only detailed
studies of any potential site will reveal the true nature of likely impacts to
biodiversity.




More detailed inspection of the SA scoring matrix also reveals a number of
further inaccuracies with implications for the scoring that has been applied.
These are reflected in comments on the individual sites relating to Stowmarket
(see attached table), but include misleading assertions on site 9h not being
within 60 minutes of post-16 education facilities, which is not the case in
relation to either West-Suffolk or Suffolk Colleges at Bury St Edmunds and
Ipswich respectively. Furthermore the land bid for site 9h is clear to state that
although development would be residential-led, this would be a mixed-use
urban extension, containing a significant element (up to 4ha) of employment
land. The SA however considers that the site would produce no change to
levels of employment land allocated, giving a negative mark and therefore
fails to recognise the benefits associated with the scale and mixed use nature
of development proposed at site 9h.

In addition to this it is considered that the failure of the Sustainability Appraisal
to consider the implications of both planning policy issues and designations,
and physical constraints, including flood risk, further undermines the usefulness
of this document. As such it is considered that the methodology of the
Sustainability Appraisal is flawed and in turn has no value as a site selection
tool.
The criteria should include inaccessibility by road - ie only narrow roads access
the site, major road works required, etc., cars parked make access difficult.
1. Previous recent development on Greenfield Sites & the resulting impact eg
Debenham has 200+ houses in last 10 years therefore 33% increase in
population.
2. Effects of climate change and increase in rainfall on flood zones.
3. Geology and land contours.
4. Criteria applied fairly and equally.
Debenham has recently had a large scale housing development, not yet
complete and with houses not yet sold. The village has one of the best High
Schools in the country which is now “full to bursting”. Places at both the Primary
and High School are not guaranteed for families moving into the village.

Debenham is a country village set in a conservation area with many buildings
of historical importance. It would completely change the very special ethos of
the village if further development were to be allowed.

Yes. Please see attached note. The ability and track record of project
promoters in delivering schemes of high quality should be an important
consideration.
Yes - Suggest that consideration is given to provide "status quo" now that the
mass of development of 100 dwellings is almost complete and limit future
residential development to infill plots and brownfield sites of which there are
several within the village.
Debenham has accommodated large scale development over recent
years and struggles to accommodate such development as already
exists ( i.e. schools, parking etc).


Recently built houses have not sold as quickly as developers envisiaged
because of schooling ( lack of spaces) and further development will not
aid this situation. The schools in Debenham have excellent results (on a
National scale) which would be compromised by further development.
The village is one of much historical note with a wealth of listed buildings
at it’s centre – developments on the scale proposed would compromise
this as, enevitably further housing development would in turn give need
to additional modernization / expansion of the current village amenities.
Debenham needs time to absorb / integrate the recent developments
before adding more expansive development.
The removal of housing development on land adjoining the back of four houses
sited on the Bridewell Lane, Botesdale (ie site 1e) IP22 1DS
No. These appear to be sound and consistent with national and regional policy
background.
Social Mix - Hierarchy of settlements fundamentally changes the historic
settlement pattern of high Suffolk and will damage the social mixture of
each(settlement). The majority of civil parishes will see little or no
development, which will erode their vitality. There are implications for the
social mix because the reduced need to accommodate workers (declining
agricultural sector), the expense of traditional housing and the loss of council
housing to sales has altered the social mix and policies for affordable housing
on exception sites will not arrest the decline in our rural communities.

Housing Density - Increased density means smaller houses and gardens that
do not allow children to play (outside) in relative safety, little room for
recreational activity and require homeowners to move to achieve more room as
a family grows. Lower densities would allow families room to extend as
families grow, provide more play/recreational space and make it easier to
accommodate vehicles. [Implied benefit of more stable communities not
stated]

 Preservation -
· Loss of garden space (classified brownfield) has removed the historic setting
of older buildings and should be ended.
· The medieval churches in each parish are a focus of community pride and
identity but without support from thriving communities are increasingly
dependant on grants for maintenance.
· Footpaths and bridleways essential to accessing the countryside need regular
use to maintain them and local communities should take the lead in this
· Within Suffolk a large number of families can trace their links to their local
communities over several generations. The lack of affordable housing within
the smaller communities breaks these links
· Present policies will lead to a more concentrated urbanised society, which is
unlikely to be desirable. All communities need to be vibrant not just primary
villages.

Landscape - Britain is one of the least wooded countries in Europe and the
Local Plan should seek to preserve existing woodlands and hedgerows
particularly along boundaries – parochial, estate and meadowland.

Questions the lack of evidence base underlying Pettaughs position in settlement hierarchy

Questions the lack of evidence base underlying Pettaughs position in settlement hierarchy
              Officer's
Outcome   Recommendation
Item                 ID / Name               Organisation


  152   Elizabeth Durrant        Town Clerk - Needham Market
  158   Derrick Wood
  159   K J Wilson
  160   J V Rogers
  161   Mrs Violet Calthorpe     Stowupland Parish Council
  164   F T A Dupuy

  165   Mr N C Simmons
  166   Cllr Ron Walters         Debenham Parish Council
  168   Mrs Julia Waldron
  169   Mr J Musgrave

  190 V Hall


  193   Mark Westwood            Mark Westwood Ltd.
  194   Mr P H Johnson
  194   Mr P H Johnson
  195   Mr J Harrison



  196   Simon &n Denise Dennis
  197   Mrs Gillian Ling
  198   Mrs R Farrow             Clerk - Barham Parish Council
  211   Mr B Nancekivell

  212 Mrs G Bailey
  215 Martin & Lindsay Wood

  217 Mr & Mrs I Allard

  218 Laura Allard

  231 Mr & Mrs R Coe
  232 Peggy Fuller               Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
  233 Bridget Goodchild          Rattlesden Parish Council
                                 Chairman - Bramford Parish Plan
  235 Linda Scott                Committee
237 Mrs V Couldridge             Chairman - Cotton Parish Council
237 Mrs V Couldridge             Chairman - Cotton Parish Council
                                 Clerk - Old Newton with Dagworth &
239 Rachel Godbold               Gipping Parish Council
                                 Queensgate Eye Residents'
240   D Chapman                  Association
251   David Lowe                 EWS Chartered Surveyors
252   David Lowe                 EWS Chartered Surveyors
253   Mrs H Day
254   Mrs E P Barker
257   Lesley Silvester           Clerk - Metfield Parish Council
258   David Seccombe
259   Daniel Marsh
260   Dr Sandra Grantham Henn
271   Keith Welham




276 Matthew Clarke               Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)

280 Anne Packer/Susan M Craggs   Debenham W I

280 Anne Packer/Susan M Craggs   Debenham W I
312 Tim & Suzy Monaghan


314 Matt Lally                   Matrix Partnership




315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
316 Nicole Ker-Gibson

316 Nicole Ker-Gibson




316 Nicole Ker-Gibson
362 Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside


357 Eileen & Peter Harkin
369 Julie Cross              Andrew Martin Associates




383 John Oakenfold




384 John Oakenfold
385 Anthony M Breen


385 Anthony M Breen
       Type of Representation


Needham Market



Stowupland



Debenham




Stonham Aspal
Needham Market
Needham Market
Debenham



Debenham
Onehouse & Stowmarket
Barham & Claydon
Bramford

Bramford
Claydon

Claydon

Claydon

Debenham
Woolpit
Rattlesden

Bramford
Cotton
Cotton
Old Newton with Dagworth &
Gipping

Eye
Stowmarket
Gt Blakenham
Laxfield
Laxfield
Metfield
Debenham
Gislingham
Eye
Stowupland




Stowmarket

Debenham

Debenham
Debenham


Thurston




Debenham
Debenham

Debenham




Debenham
Botesdale


Botesdale
Needham Market




Stowmarket




Stowmarket
Needham Market -


Needham Market -
                                                                     Officer's
                                                                     Recomm
                           Representation                    Outcome endation
The Unilever brownfield site off the High Street, must be
included and considered prior to any greenfield
development.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Unilever and Chalk Pit Sites plus any other PDL sites that
become available before 2020.
None at this time.
See Question 3 - Thorndon.
No.
No, because all apparent potential sites already have land
bids in Bramford.
Stonham Aspal 2h - it is on the main A1120! in a village
with alll the facilities, shops, school, bus service,
employment.
Unilever Site (now vacant).
Chalk Pit Site (some development possible).
No.
Not in Debenham! Future development should focus only
on large towns/cities as they can support the population
increase and the countryside remains as it should, i.e.
countryside!
No.
No.
Bramford Picnic Site - See 3e (question 3).

No - There are already too many suggested for Bramford.
No - as do not know enough about other locations.

If there is a need for development then maybe site X7ob.
What is being done about the old plastic factory - is this
area suitable??
Debenham has got two empty factory sites in the
Settlement Boundary.
No.
No.

No.
No.
No.

No.

No.
No comment.
Review in the light of above study findings.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No (however see Landbid 9h on behalf of George (Taylor)
Wimpey in relation to land at Chilton Leys, Stowmarket).
The site is deliverable, being in single ownership, and
benefits from good accessibility to a wide range of facilities
and services. Discussions with utility and service
providers is well advanced, with no overriding constraints
present.
Debenham 2 factory sites at present empty in settlement
boundary
Needham Market - See Issues & Options p12 - only 10%
increase in population in 15 years.
No, but individual development could be considered.
No. As the attached note explains, Site 2h is the most
sustainable site for future development in the village (7h is
already being developed).

Yes - A small parcel of land with "The Homestead", field
472 of approximate area 2.859 acres that adjoin SB and
primary school playing fields. Accessed from London Hill
on s w side. See separate details for inclusion in land bid.
No – see above. Question 1
If sites come up within existing boundary then it fair to
consider these – i.e. 4H .
Any development outside the current village boundary
would be expanding the village in an unrelated direction
to earlier developments and would put pressure on
amenities as above.
If houses are to be built in Botesdale, then a sensible
option would be the triangular land at the back of the
school adjoining the Redgrave Road (B1113) - site no. 2h
As long as the sites don't affect the heritage of the area.
Visual and historical heritage should be preserved at all
times.
No.
Is of the opinion that sites to the south and east of
Stowmarket would be preferable to 9h as would Needham
Market, which is more readily accessible to Ipswich and
fast expanding Hadleigh and Sudbury
Is of the opinion that sites to the south and east of
Stowmarket would be preferable to 27h as would
Needham Market, which is more readily accessible to
Ipswich and fast expanding Hadleigh and Sudbury

· The schools review may combine Needham Market‟s 2
schools creating a potential for brownfield development

· Suggests an area north of the A14 between Elmswell
and Woolpit close to Warren Lane
Item                    ID / Name              Organisation


       1 Gerald Jenkins             Parish Councillor Stradbroke
       1 Gerald Jenkins             Parish Councillor Stradbroke

       1 Gerald Jenkins             Parish Councillor Stradbroke

       1   Gerald Jenkins           Parish Councillor Stradbroke
       2   Bernard C Mills
       2   Bernard C Mills
       2   Bernard C Mills
       2   Bernard C Mills
       3   Yvonne Race



       3 Yvonne Race


       4 Jacqui Mann



       4 Jacqui Mann
       5 Unknown 1

       5 Unknown 1
       5 Unknown1




       6 Pauline M Porter           RH Enterprise
       7 Don Darling

       7 Don Darling
       8 Mr R M Reeves

       8 Mr R M Reeves


       8 Mr R M Reeves
       8 Mr R M Reeves
       9 Roger Thurkington
 9   Roger Thurkington
 9   Roger Thurkington
 9   Roger Thurkington
 9   Roger Thurkington




10 Adrian Smith

11 Deborah McEwen-Davies


11 Deborah McEwen-Davies
11 Deborah McEwen-Davies



11   Deborah McEwen-Davies
11   Deborah McEwen-Davies
12   Mrs M Swale
12   Mrs M Swale
12   Mrs M Swale
12   Mrs M Swale




13 Mr/Mrs D Chaplin

13 Mr/Mrs D Chaplin




14 Mrs Jenny Eason

14 Mrs Jenny Eason

15 J Firman
16 David Murton
16 David Murton
16   David Murton
17   Carl Reeder
17   Carl Reeder
17   Carl Reeder
17   Carl Reeder
17   Carl Reeder
18   R J Sago
18   R J Sago
18   R J Sago


19 Gavin Girling

19 Gavin Girling

20 Tony Hutt

20 Tony Hutt

20 Tony Hutt
20 Tony Hutt
20 Tony Hutt




20 Tony Hutt

21 W Green
22 C E S Wiltshire
22 C E S Wiltshire

23 Charles Michael Russ


23 Charles Michael Russ

23 Charles Michael Russ




24 John Rhodes & Sue Rhodes
24 John Rhodes & Sue Rhodes
25 Dave Sumner

25 Dave Sumner
26 Mr F. T. Hillyer

26 Mr F. T. Hillyer
27 Andrew Smith

28 Chas Winfield

29 Andrew Horrex                 Chairman - Stowmarket F.C.

30 Drs R & S Bawden

31 B Girling
31 B Girling



32 T.A. Yager

33   Anne Yager
33   Anne Yager
33   Anne Yager
33   Anne Yager




34 Christine Williams

35 Mr & Mrs T.A. Featherstone




35 Mr & Mrs T.A. Featherstone


36 Mr & Mrs M Elliott

36 Alan & Christine Bickerdike
36 Alan & Christine Bickerdike
36 Alan & Christine Bickerdike
37 Mrs Wendy Parris

37 Mrs Wendy Parris




38 Russell Sawyer

39 Jill Lambert

39 Jill Lambert


39 Jill Lambert



39 Jill Lambert
40 Julian Adams

40   Julian Adams
41   Mr & Mrs C Hayward
41   Mr & Mrs C Hayward
41   Mr & Mrs C Hayward

42 Mrs Kate Rosten ACA
42 Mrs Kate Rosten ACA



42 Mrs Kate Rosten ACA




43 Mr & Mrs R Isaac

43 Mr & Mrs R Isaac



44 Mr N & Mrs C Atkins
44 Mr N & Mrs C Atkins
44 Mr N & Mrs C Atkins




45 Stephen Neave
45 Stephen Neave

46 T Potter

46 T Potter


46 T Potter

46 T Potter




47 I D Harvey




48 Mr & Mrs T E Oates




49 Mr & Mrs D Cook
50 Revd Chris Norburn
50 Revd Chris Norburn


51 Jordan Harris
52 Daniel Smith

53 Mrs S D Elms

53 Mrs S D Elms


53 Mrs S D Elms
53 Mrs S D Elms


53 Mrs S D Elms
54 I Haywood
55 Mrs C Rose




55 Mrs C Rose
56 Mr & Mrs B Gardiner
56 Mr & Mrs B Gardiner


57   Marcus Bowyer & Catherine Anderson
58   Mr R Elliss
58   Mr R Elliss
58   Mr R Elliss

59 Unknown 2


59 Unknown 2

59 Unknown 2




60 Mr Alastair Cardwell




61 Gordon & Janet Lawrence



62 Terry & Sue Cattermole
63 Mr & Mrs L B J Rogers




64 Dominic Francis




64 Dominic Francis


65 J Lea

66 J Lea
66 J Lea

66 J Lea


67 T Deane


67 T Deane

68 Bill Wilson
68 Bill Wilson
68 Bill Wilson
69 Mrs R M Burrage



69 Mrs R M Burrage

70 Mrs J Proctor
70 Mrs J Proctor
70 Mrs J Proctor


71 Mrs J Blackburn
72 Bob Boxall-Hunt

73 Unknown 3
74 R Tye


75 Mrs H Smith

76 Roy Troth
77 Colin Moyes




77 Colin Moyes


78 Unknown 3

78 Unknown 3
79 Unknown 4
79 Unknown 4

79 Unknown 4

80 V Calthorpe


80 V Calthorpe
81 Unknown 5
81 Unknown 5

81 Unknown 5




82   Robert Bloom
83   Unknown 6
83   Unknown 6
83   Unknown 6
83   Unknown 6

84 Unknown 7



85 Unknown 8

86 A Cooper
87 Unknown 9
87 Unknown 9

88 Unknown 10
89 Unknown 11
89 Unknown 11

90   Unknown 11
90   Unknown 11
90   Unknown 11
90   Unknown 11
90   Unknown 11
91   Unknown 11
91   Unknown 11
91   Unknown 11


92 Mrs D Warner
92 Mrs D Warner


92 Mrs D Warner

93 R A Hall
 94   D Melhuish
 95   Unknown 12
 95   Unknown 12
 95   Unknown 12

 95 Unknown 12


 96 Joyce Gardiner
 96 Joyce Gardiner

 97   Unknown 12
 97   Unknown 12
 98   Unknown 13
 98   Unknown 13
 98   Unknown 13
 98   Unknown 13
 99   Mrs S Houlden

 99 Mrs S Houlden

 99 Mrs S Houlden
100 Mrs A Champion
100 Mrs A Champion

100 Mrs A Champion




101 Verity J Franklin




101 Verity J Franklin
102 Dr.J D Mugglestone




102 Dr.J D Mugglestone


103 Sarah Young
103 Sarah Young



104 J Bloye



105 Unknown 14

106 Mr C Painter
107 Unknown 15




108 Patrick Miles
109 Alan Davy

110 Unknown 16

110 Unknown 16

111 Keith Welham
111 Keith Welham

111 Keith Welham




111 Keith Welham
111 Keith Welham

111 Keith Welham

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17
112 Unknown 17
112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17
112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17

112 Unknown 17
113 Mrs Anne Coates
113 Mrs Anne Coates

113 Mrs Anne Coates

113   Mrs Anne Coates
113   Mrs Anne Coates
113   Mrs Anne Coates
113   Mrs Anne Coates
113   Mrs Anne Coates
113   Mrs Anne Coates
113   Mrs Anne Coates
113   Mrs Anne Coates

113 Mrs Anne Coates
113 Mrs Anne Coates
113 Mrs Anne Coates




114 Steve Leigh




115   Mr & Mrs T Cooper
116   Mrs B Granath
116   Mrs B Granath
116   Mrs B Granath
117   Mrs M Lea


118 Mr & Mrs R R Boulton
119 Colin Churchill
119 Colin Churchill

119 Colin Churchill


120 Mr. J E Burssy

120 Mr. J E Burssy



120 Mr. J E Burssy



121 Mrs V L Churchill


121   Mrs V L Churchill
122   Unknown 18
122   Unknown 18
122   Unknown 18




123 C Johnson

123 C Johnson

124 Mrs D J Annis

124 Mrs D J Annis


124 Mrs D J Annis
125 Mr & Mrs G C Uttley

126 Lionel Frederick Coe

126 Lionel Frederick Coe

126 Lionel Frederick Coe


126 Lionel Frederick Coe
126 Lionel Frederick Coe

126 Lionel Frederick Coe


126 Lionel Frederick Coe

126 Lionel Frederick Coe


127 Nicky Turner



127 Nicky Turner




127 Nicky Turner


127 Nicky Turner




127 Nicky Turner




127 Nicky Turner


127 Nicky Turner



127 Nicky Turner
127 Nicky Turner

127 Nicky Turner

127 Nicky Turner

127 Nicky Turner



127   Nicky Turner
127   Nicky Turner
127   Nicky Turner
127   Nicky Turner

128 Mr J Barber

128   Mr J Barber
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave
129   Mr M C Shave



    Miranda Shephard - Assistant
130 Conservation Officier




131 C Keyes

    Philip Freeman - Thrandeston Parish
132 Clerk
    Philip Freeman - Thrandeston Parish
132 Clerk




133 L.F.Coe




133 L.F.Coe



134 Peter Woodford



134 Peter Woodford




134 Peter Woodford

137 N.R.W.Johnson

138 Mr Laurie Wise

139 Mike & Rita Perkins
140 Jerry Voden
141 Sharon Jones
141 Sharon Jones
141 Sharon Jones




141 Sharon Jones



141 Sharon Jones

141 Sharon Jones

141   Sharon Jones
141   Sharon Jones
141   Sharon Jones
141   Sharon Jones
141   Sharon Jones
141   Sharon Jones

141 Sharon Jones


142 A Morgan


142 A Morgan

143 Mrs K Peters


144 Unknown 19




145 Mr. L. Mallinson


145 Mr. L. Mallinson
146 Hilary Butler
146 Hilary Butler


146 Hilary Butler




146 Hilary Butler


146   Hilary Butler
147   Hilary Butler
147   Hilary Butler
147   Hilary Butler
147   Hilary Butler

147 Hilary Butler
147 Hilary Butler

147 Hilary Butler
147 Hilary Butler

147   Hilary Butler
147   Hilary Butler
147   Hilary Butler
147   Hilary Butler

147 Hilary Butler


148 Wayne Holton

148 Wayne Holton


148 Wayne Holton



148 Wayne Holton




148 Wayne Holton
148 Wayne Holton



148 Wayne Holton



148 Wayne Holton




149 Ben Hood
150 George Hazell         W A Howes & Son
151
    Mr Paul E Wise
151
    Mr Paul E Wise
151
    Mr Paul E Wise
152                       Town Clerk - Needham Market

      Elizabeth Durrant
152   Elizabeth Durrant   Town Clerk - Needham Market
152   Elizabeth Durrant   Town Clerk - Needham Market
152   Elizabeth Durrant   Town Clerk - Needham Market
152   Elizabeth Durrant   Town Clerk - Needham Market
152                       Town Clerk - Needham Market

      Elizabeth Durrant
152                       Town Clerk - Needham Market
    Elizabeth Durrant
152 Elizabeth Durrant     Town Clerk - Needham Market
152                       Town Clerk - Needham Market
    Elizabeth Durrant
152 Elizabeth Durrant     Town Clerk - Needham Market
153


      Mr. J Kirby
153
      Mr. J Kirby
153


    Mr. J Kirby
154 Mrs S Rose        Drinkstone Parish Council
154                   Drinkstone Parish Council
    Mrs S Rose
155 A G Morris
155
    A G Morris
156

      Mr. G Chapman
157   Mr A Noble
157   Mr A Noble
157   Mr A Noble
157   Mr A Noble
157
      Mr A Noble
157   Mr A Noble
157   Mr A Noble
157   Mr A Noble
157   Mr A Noble
157
    Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
157
    Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
157 Mr A Noble
158 Derrick Wood
158 Derrick Wood
158
    Derrick Wood
158 Derrick Wood
158
    Derrick Wood
158
    Derrick Wood
158

      Derrick Wood
159




      K J Wilson
159




    K J Wilson
159 K J Wilson
159
    K J Wilson
159




      K J Wilson
159



      K J Wilson
160

    J V Rogers
161 Mrs Violet Calthorpe   Stowupland Parish Council
161 Mrs Violet Calthorpe   Stowupland Parish Council
161                        Stowupland Parish Council
    Mrs Violet Calthorpe
162




      Ian Dicker
162




      Ian Dicker
163




      P M Porter
163

      P M Porter
164




      F T A Dupuy
165


      Mr N C Simmons
165
      Mr N C Simmons
166                      Debenham Parish Council
      Cllr Ron Walters
166                      Debenham Parish Council

      Cllr Ron Walters
166                      Debenham Parish Council
      Cllr Ron Walters
166                      Debenham Parish Council

      Cllr Ron Walters
166                      Debenham Parish Council
      Cllr Ron Walters
166                      Debenham Parish Council

      Cllr Ron Walters
166                      Debenham Parish Council

      Cllr Ron Walters
166                       Debenham Parish Council
      Cllr Ron Walters
167                       Sport England

      Philip Raiswell
167                       Sport England

      Philip Raiswell
168


      Mrs Julia Waldron
168




      Mrs Julia Waldron
169


      Mr J Musgrave
169
      Mr J Musgrave
169



      Mr J Musgrave
169
      Mr J Musgrave
170

    Mrs J Keeling
170 Mrs J Keeling
170

      Mrs J Keeling
170
      Mrs J Keeling
170
      Mrs J Keeling
170
      Mrs J Keeling
170

    Mrs J Keeling
171 Rev. David M B Mathers   St Peters Church Thurston
171 Rev. David M B Mathers   St Peters Church Thurston



171 Rev. David M B Mathers   St Peters Church Thurston




172 Mr & Mrs P Morgan




173 Patrick Harrington       Palgrave Parish Council




173 Patrick Harrington       Palgrave Parish Council



174 Mrs A Clancy             Walsham-le-Willows Parish Council

174 Mrs A Clancy             Walsham-le-Willows Parish Council
175 Susan Leigh


175 Susan Leigh




176 Magnus Gallie     Savills Group




176 Magnus Gallie     Savills Group




176 Magnus Gallie     Savills Group


176   Magnus Gallie   Savills Group
176   Magnus Gallie   Savills Group
176   Magnus Gallie   Savills Group
176   Magnus Gallie   Savills Group
176   Magnus Gallie   Savills Group
176   Magnus Gallie   Savills Group
177   John Bean              Bacton Parish Council
177   John Bean              Bacton Parish Council
177   John Bean              Bacton Parish Council
177   John Bean              Bacton Parish Council
177   John Bean              Bacton Parish Council

177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council

177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council

177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council
177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council




177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council

177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council
177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council
177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council

177 John Bean                Bacton Parish Council




178 Michael & Susan Dennis




179 B. K. Hall

179 B. K. Hall


179 B. K. Hall


180 R. West
181 C. Vokins



181 C. Vokins



181 C. Vokins


182   Mrs Shirley Gooch
182   Mrs Shirley Gooch
182   Mrs Shirley Gooch
182   Mrs Shirley Gooch

182 Mrs Shirley Gooch
182 Mrs Shirley Gooch
182 Mrs Shirley Gooch

183 Sandra & Duncan Welham

183 Sandra & Duncan Welham

184 S.J. Briggs

185 Colin Moyes

185 Colin Moyes



185 Colin Moyes
186 Kathryn Thompson         Drivers Jonas

187 Paul Brooks
187 Paul Brooks
188 Jill Lee

188 Jill Lee
189 J. Lea
190



      V Hall
190




    V Hall
190 V Hall




190 Russell Parry




190 Russell Parry
191

      Mr Edward Harvey
191



      Mr Edward Harvey
191



    Mr Edward Harvey
191 Mr Edward Harvey
191




    Mr Edward Harvey
192 Rosemary Jones
192

    Rosemary Jones
192 Rosemary Jones
192
    Rosemary Jones
192 Rosemary Jones
192 Rosemary Jones
193


      Mark Westwood
193

      Mark Westwood
193
      Mark Westwood
194

      Mr P H Johnson
194




    Mr P H Johnson
194 Mr P H Johnson
195


      Mr J Harrison
196   Simon & Denise Dennis
196   Simon & Denise Dennis
196   Simon & Denise Dennis
196   Simon & Denise Dennis
196   Simon & Denise Dennis
196



    Simon & Denise Dennis
196 Simon & Denise Dennis
196 Simon & Denise Dennis
196 Simon & Denise Dennis
197
    Mrs Gillian Ling
198                         Clerk - Barham Parish Council

      Mrs R Farrow
198                         Clerk - Barham Parish Council
      Mrs R Farrow
198                         Clerk - Barham Parish Council


      Mrs R Farrow
198                         Clerk - Barham Parish Council

    Mrs R Farrow
198 Mrs R Farrow            Clerk - Barham Parish Council
199
    Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton
199 Mr Eric Wolton




200 Jonathan Parker



200 Jonathan Parker
201 Kelvin Dakin

201 Kelvin Dakin


201   Kelvin Dakin
202   Mrs E. M. Rivers                Creeting St Peter Parish Council
202   Mrs E. M. Rivers                Creeting St Peter Parish Council
202   Mrs E. M. Rivers                Creeting St Peter Parish Council
202   Mrs E. M. Rivers                Creeting St Peter Parish Council

202 Mrs E. M. Rivers                  Creeting St Peter Parish Council
202 Mrs E. M. Rivers                  Creeting St Peter Parish Council
                                      Old Newton with Dagworth and
203 Rachel Godbold                    Gipping Parish Council

204 Mrs S.J. Groom                    Coddenham Parish Council
204 Mrs S.J. Groom                    Coddenham Parish Council

204 Mrs S.J. Groom                    Coddenham Parish Council

204 Mrs S.J. Groom                    Coddenham Parish Council

204 Mrs S.J. Groom                    Coddenham Parish Council



204 Mrs S.J. Groom                    Coddenham Parish Council



204 Mrs S.J. Groom                    Coddenham Parish Council


205 B. E. Earthy

205 B. E. Earthy


206 Chris Jones & Cherrill Theobald

206 Chris Jones & Cherrill Theobald
206 Chris Jones & Cherrill Theobald
207 Mrs S.M. Herring                  Needham Market Society
207 Mrs S.M.Herring                   Needham Market Society

207 Mrs S.M.Herring                   Needham Market Society
207 Mrs S.M.Herring                   Needham Market Society
207 Mrs S.M.Herring                   Needham Market Society

207 Mrs S.M.Herring                   Needham Market Society
207 Mrs S.M.Herring                   Needham Market Society
207 Mrs S.M. Herring                  Needham Market Society

207 Mrs S.M. Herring                  Needham Market Society

207 Mrs S.M. Herring                  Needham Market Society
207 Mrs S.M. Herring                  Needham Market Society


208 John Hitchcock




209 John Hitchcock                    Hitchcock Farms Ringshall




209 John Hitchcock                    Hitchcock Farms Ringshall

209 John Hitchcock                    Hitchcock Farms Ringshall

                                      Ex Mid Suffolk District Counciller -
210 Alan E Stiff                      Retired
                                      Ex Mid Suffolk District Counciller -
210 Alan E Stiff                      Retired
                            Ex Mid Suffolk District Counciller -
210   Alan E Stiff          Retired
211   Mr. B Nancekivell
211   Mr. B Nancekivell
211   Mr. B Nancekivell
211
    Mr. B Nancekivell
211 Mr. B Nancekivell
211 Mr. B Nancekivell
211
    Mr. B Nancekivell
211 Mr. B Nancekivell
212 Mrs G Bailey
212 Mrs G Bailey
212 Mrs G Bailey
212 Mrs G Bailey
212
    Mrs G Bailey
212

      Mrs G Bailey
213

      Graham Colthorpe
213

      Graham Colthorpe
213
      Graham Colthorpe
213
      Graham Colthorpe
214

      C Ellis
214
    C Ellis
214 C Ellis
215 Martin & Lindsay Wood
215 Martin & Lindsay Wood
215
    Martin & Lindsay Wood
215
    Martin & Lindsay Wood
215 Martin & Lindsay Wood
216                          Clarke & Simpson Co. Ltd.



    Christopher Clarke
217 Mr & Mrs I Allard
217 Mr & Mrs I Allard
217

      Mr & Mrs I Allard
217
      Mr & Mrs I Allard
217
      Mr & Mrs I Allard
218


      Laura Allard
218




      Laura Allard
219
      Mrs Gillian Seccombe
219




      Mrs Gillian Seccombe
219


      Mrs Gillian Seccombe
219

      Mrs Gillian Seccombe
219
      Mrs Gillian Seccombe
220
    Mr John E Moore
220 Mr John E Moore
220




    Mr John E Moore
220 Mr John E Moore




221 Mrs J. Potter
221 Mrs J. Potter


221 Mrs J. Potter


222   Mr M.P. Lay
222   Mr M.P. Lay
222   Mr M.P. Lay
222   Mr M.P. Lay

223 Mrs A. Coates

223 Mrs A. Coates
223 Mrs A. Coates

223 Mrs A. Coates


224 The Secretary     Palgrave Parochial Church Council

225 Peggy Fuller      Onehouse Parish Council

225 Peggy Fuller      Onehouse Parish Council


225 Peggy Fuller      Onehouse Parish Council
225 Peggy Fuller     Onehouse Parish Council




225 Peggy Fuller     Onehouse Parish Council


225 Peggy Fuller     Onehouse Parish Council

225 Peggy Fuller     Onehouse Parish Council

225 Peggy Fuller     Onehouse Parish Council
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley

                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley
                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley

                     District Councillor - Needham Market
226 Wendy Marchant   & Badley




227 D.J. Howard



227 D.J. Howard

227 D.J. Howard



227 D.J. Howard




227 D.J. Howard



227 D.J. Howard

227 D.J. Howard



227 D.J. Howard




227 D.J. Howard
227 D.J. Howard
228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council




228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council




228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council



228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council




228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council




228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council

228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council




228 Rachel Godbold   Stowupland Parish Council
229 Mr & Mrs R. & L. Garnham


230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market



230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market


230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market


230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market

230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market

230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market
230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market

230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market

230 Elizabeth Durrant          Town Clerk, Needham Market
231 Mr & Mrs R Coe
231

    Mr & Mrs R Coe
231 Mr & Mrs R Coe
231
    Mr & Mrs R Coe
232                            Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
    Peggy Fuller
232                            Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council

      Peggy Fuller
232                            Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
      Peggy Fuller
232                            Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council


      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council



      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council



      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council

      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council




      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council




      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council

      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council

      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council


      Peggy Fuller
232                  Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council



      Peggy Fuller
232 Peggy Fuller          Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
232                       Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council


      Peggy Fuller
232                       Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council

    Peggy Fuller
232 Peggy Fuller          Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
232                       Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council




      Peggy Fuller
232                       Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council



      Peggy Fuller
232                       Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
      Peggy Fuller
232                       Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council


      Peggy Fuller
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council


      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council

    Bridget Goodchild
233 Bridget Goodchild     Rattlesden Parish Council
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council

      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council

      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council


      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council

      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council

      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council

      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council
      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council


    Bridget Goodchild
233 Bridget Goodchild     Rattlesden Parish Council
233 Bridget Goodchild     Rattlesden Parish Council
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council

      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council
      Bridget Goodchild
233                       Rattlesden Parish Council
    Bridget Goodchild
233 Bridget Goodchild     Rattlesden Parish Council
234
    Richard Steward
234

      Richard Steward
234
      Richard Steward
235                       Chairman - Bramford Parish Plan
      Linda Scott         Committee
235                       Chairman - Bramford Parish Plan
      Linda Scott         Committee
235                       Chairman - Bramford Parish Plan
      Linda Scott         Committee
235                       Chairman - Bramford Parish Plan
      Linda Scott         Committee
237                       Chairman - Cotton Parish Council
      Mrs V Couldridge
237                       Chairman - Cotton Parish Council


      Mrs V Couldridge
238                      Chairman - Cotton Parish Council




      Mrs V Couldridge
239                      Old Newton with Dagworth & Gipping
      Rachel Godbold     Parish Council
240                      Queensgate Eye Residents'
                         Association
      D Chapman
240                      Queensgate Eye Residents'
      D Chapman          Association
240                      Queensgate Eye Residents'
      D Chapman          Association
240                      Queensgate Eye Residents'
                         Association
      D Chapman




                         Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee            Clerk




                         Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee            Clerk




                         Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee            Clerk
                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk


                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk
                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk
                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk



                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk



                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk
                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk




                Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee   Clerk
                      Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee         Clerk



                      Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee         Clerk




                      Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee         Clerk



                      Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee         Clerk



                      Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee         Clerk




                      Bramford Parish Council - Parish
241 Mrs C.Lee         Clerk



243 Michael Ruffles




244 Mrs S.J. Hubner   Occold Parish Council - Clerk
246 Mrs Alison Bromwich




246 Mrs Alison Bromwich
247 Richard Olding
247 Richard Olding

247 Richard Olding



247 Richard Olding

247 Richard Olding
247 Richard Olding




248   Janet & Neil Rutherford
248   Janet & Neil Rutherford
248   Janet & Neil Rutherford
249   Lene Christensen-Martin


249 Lene Christensen-Martin

249 Lene Christensen-Martin

249 Lene Christensen-Martin

249 Lene Christensen-Martin
249 Lene Christensen-Martin




250 Mr R.K. Paton
250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton


250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton

250 Mr R.K. Paton
250 Mr R.K. Paton


250 Mr R.K. Paton


250 Mr R.K. Paton


250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton
250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton
250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton

250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton
250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton


250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton




250 Mr R.K. Paton


250 Mr R.K. Paton
251                 EWS Chartered Surveyors
    David Lowe
251                 EWS Chartered Surveyors
    David Lowe
251 David Lowe      EWS Chartered Surveyors
251 David Lowe      EWS Chartered Surveyors
251 David Lowe      EWS Chartered Surveyors
252                         EWS Chartered Surveyors

      David Lowe
252                         EWS Chartered Surveyors
    David Lowe
253 Mrs H Day
253



      Mrs H Day
253

      Mrs H Day
254   Mrs E P Barker
254   Mrs E P Barker
254   Mrs E P Barker
254   Mrs E P Barker
254   Mrs E P Barker
254   Mrs E P Barker
254   Mrs E P Barker
254   Mrs E P Barker
255

      Mrs J M Darling
255

      Mrs J M Darling
255

      Mrs J M Darling
255
      Mrs J M Darling
255
    Mrs J M Darling
256 Christopher Roberts
256 Christopher Roberts
256 Christopher Roberts
256



      Christopher Roberts
258

      David Seccombe
258




      David Seccombe
258



      David Seccombe
258



      David Seccombe
258


      David Seccombe
258

    David Seccombe
259 Daniel Marsh
259


      Daniel Marsh
259
      Daniel Marsh
259

      Daniel Marsh
259

      Daniel Marsh
259

    Daniel Marsh
259 Daniel Marsh
259
    Daniel Marsh
260 Dr Sandra Grantham Henn
260 Dr Sandra Grantham Henn
260 Dr Sandra Grantham Henn
260 Dr Sandra Grantham Henn
260 Dr Sandra Grantham Henn
262 R Bound

262 R Bound



262 R Bound




263 Unknown 20
                          Parish Clerk - Wetheringsett cum
264 Mrs L Cockerton       Brockford Parish Council




265 Angela Dennis




265 Angela Dennis

265 Angela Dennis
265 Angela Dennis


266 Bill Wallace - King

267 James Portway



268 Mrs Jo Jackaman
270 Tony Carter               Carters Ceramic Designs Limited



270 Tony Carter               Carters Ceramic Designs Limited
271 Keith Welham
271 Keith Welham
271




      Keith Welham
271
      Keith Welham
271
      Keith Welham
272



      Mr P Coleby
272
      Mr P Coleby
272
      Mr P Coleby
272
      Mr P Coleby
273

      Roy Cook
273

      Roy Cook
273
      Roy Cook
273

      Roy Cook
273

    Roy Cook
274 John & Christine Aldous
274

      John & Christine Aldous
274

      John & Christine Aldous
275                             Clerk - Hoxne Parish Council
      Christina Brewin
275                             Clerk - Hoxne Parish Council
      Christina Brewin
275                             Clerk - Hoxne Parish Council


      Christina Brewin
275                             Clerk - Hoxne Parish Council


    Christina Brewin
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                             Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                             Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                             Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                             Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                             Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                             Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)


    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke              Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
      Matthew Clarke
276   Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276   Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276   Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276   Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276   Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276   Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276   Matthew Clarke   Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)




    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)

    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276 Matthew Clarke     Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)
    Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)

      Matthew Clarke
276                    Boyer Planning Ltd (Taylor Wimpey)

      Matthew Clarke
279
    Tony Hutt
279 Tony Hutt
279
    Tony Hutt
279
    Tony Hutt
279
    Tony Hutt
279
    Tony Hutt
279 Tony Hutt
279

    Tony Hutt
279 Tony Hutt
279


      Tony Hutt
279

    Tony Hutt
280 Anne Packer/Susan Craggs     Debenham W    I
280 Anne Packer/Susan Craggs     Debenham W    I
280 Anne Packer/Susan Craggs     Debenham W    I
280                              Debenham W    I


      Anne Packer/Susan Craggs
280                              Debenham W I

    Anne Packer/Susan Craggs
280 Anne Packer/Susan Craggs     Debenham W I
280 Anne Packer/Susan Craggs     Debenham W I


281 N.M. Stones                  Stones of Stradbroke

282 Parish Clerk                 Fressingfield Parish Council


282 Parish Clerk                 Fressingfield Parish Council

282 Parish Clerk                 Fressingfield Parish Council
282 Parish Clerk                 Fressingfield Parish Council



282 Parish Clerk                 Fressingfield Parish Council
282 Parish Clerk                 Fressingfield Parish Council



282 Parish Clerk                 Fressingfield Parish Council
                                 District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris                  & Badley
                                 District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris                  & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley
                        District Councillor - Needham Market
283 Mike Norris         & Badley




284 David M Williams    Chairman - Felsham Parish Council




285 Mrs K Parker




286 Geoffrey Robinson   Worlingworth Parish Council
287 Miss C Spurrier


288 Peter Dow         Elmswell Parish Council




289 Susan Craggs

290 John Risbridger




290 John Risbridger




291 Mrs J Gould       Earl Stonham Parish Council



291 Mrs J Gould       Earl Stonham Parish Council




292 Roger Gilles      Barefoot & Gilles
292 Roger Gilles        Barefoot & Gilles




                        Planning Environmental and
                        Landscape Consultant on behalf of Mr
293 John Popham         & Mrs I Dryden and Mrs P Debenham




296 Alastair Cardwell

297   J. H. Bean        Wyverstone - Parish Clerk
297   J. H. Bean        Wyverstone - Parish Clerk
297   J. H. Bean        Wyverstone - Parish Clerk
297   J. H. Bean        Wyverstone - Parish Clerk
297   J. H. Bean        Wyverstone - Parish Clerk




298 Mr & Mrs P Over




298 Mr & Mrs P Over




298 Mr & Mrs P Over
298 Mr & Mrs P Over



298 Mr & Mrs P Over




300 Mr S.J. & Mrs R. Wright




300 Mr S.J. & Mrs R. Wright




301 Richard Pryor




301 Richard Pryor


301 Richard Pryor
301 Richard Pryor




302 H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd     c/o Bidwells


302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells

302 H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd     c/o Bidwells

302 H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd     c/o Bidwells

302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
302   H. R. Philpot & Son (Holdings) Ltd   c/o Bidwells
307   Peter Everson
307 Peter Everson




307 Peter Everson




307 Peter Everson




307 Peter Everson




307 Peter Everson
308 John Tuppen


308 John Tuppen


308 John Tuppen


308   John Tuppen
308   John Tuppen
308   John Tuppen
308   John Tuppen

308 John Tuppen


308 John Tuppen




308 John Tuppen




308 John Tuppen




308 John Tuppen




308 John Tuppen




308 John Tuppen
308   John Tuppen
310   Barton Willmore       Bellway Homes
310   Barton Willmore       Bellway Homes
310   Barton Willmore       Bellway Homes
310   Barton Willmore       Bellway Homes
310   Barton Willmore       Bellway Homes
312   Tim & Suzy Monaghan
312
      Tim & Suzy Monaghan
312
      Tim & Suzy Monaghan
312
    Tim & Suzy Monaghan
312 Tim & Suzy Monaghan
312

      Tim & Suzy Monaghan
312
      Tim & Suzy Monaghan
314                         Matrix Partnership
      Matt Lally
314                         Matrix Partnership
    Matt Lally
314 Matt Lally              Matrix Partnership
314 Matt Lally              Matrix Partnership
314 Matt Lally              Matrix Partnership
314                         Matrix Partnership
    Matt Lally
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315
    Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315
    Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315
    Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315

      Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315
    Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315
    Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315
    Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315 Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315

      Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315   Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315   Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
315   Mr J J & Mrs M Webb
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316


      Nicole Ker-Gibson
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316   Nicole Ker-Gibson
316
    Nicole Ker-Gibson
316 Nicole Ker-Gibson
318                         Arnolds Chartered Surveyors

      Adam Tuck
318                         Arnolds Chartered Surveyors
      Adam Tuck
319                         Chartered Town Planning Consultant

      Gordon Terry
319                         Chartered Town Planning Consultant
      Gordon Terry
320                         Indigo Planning




    Leanne Croft
321 Ann Reynolds
321

      Ann Reynolds
321

      Ann Reynolds
321



      Ann Reynolds
321

      Ann Reynolds
321


      Ann Reynolds
323
      J & P Harvey
323

      J & P Harvey
323
      J & P Harvey
323
    J & P Harvey
324 Mirian
324

      Mirian
325   George Jagger
326   Jack
326   Jack
326   Jack
326   Jack
327   Ellie Jagger
327   Ellie Jagger
327   Ellie Jagger
327   Ellie Jagger
327   Ellie Jagger
327   Ellie Jagger
327   Ellie Jagger
328   William Jagger
328   William Jagger
328
      William Jagger
328 William Jagger
328
    William Jagger
328 William Jagger
329                                Mark - Chairman of Recreation
    Mark & Janette Jagger          Committee
329                                Mark - Chairman of Recreation
    Mark & Janette Jagger          Committee
329                                Mark - Chairman of Recreation
                                   Committee
      Mark & Janette Jagger
330
      Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
330   Ryan Riseborough
331
      Craig Riseborough
331   Craig Riseborough
331   Craig Riseborough
331   Craig Riseborough
331   Craig Riseborough
331   Craig Riseborough
332


      Mr & Mrs M Durrant
332

      Kyle Durrant
332


      Michelle Durrant
333
    Katy Beth van den Berg-Hider
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334
    Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334

    Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334
    Terry & Sarah Slater
334


    Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334
    Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334
    Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
334 Terry & Sarah Slater
336 Millard                 Consulting Engineers
336 Millard                 Consulting Engineers
336 Millard                 Consulting Engineers
337 Karen & Adrian Hook
337
    Karen & Adrian Hook
337
    Karen & Adrian Hook
337



      Karen & Adrian Hook
337
      Karen & Adrian Hook
337

      Karen & Adrian Hook
337
    Karen & Adrian Hook
337 Karen & Adrian Hook
338 Lucinda Rogers          Clerk - Gt Finborough Parish Council
338 Lucinda Rogers          Clerk - Gt Finborough Parish Council
338 Lucinda Rogers    Clerk - Gt Finborough Parish Council
338 Lucinda Rogers    Clerk - Gt Finborough Parish Council
338 Lucinda Rogers    Clerk - Gt Finborough Parish Council
340
    Ian Sandlan
340

      Ian Sandlan
340
      Ian Sandlan
340   Ian Sandlan
340   Ian Sandlan
340   Ian Sandlan
340   Ian Sandlan
340   Ian Sandlan
341                   Clerk - Buxhall Parish Council



      Malcolm Baker
341                   Clerk - Buxhall Parish Council
      Malcolm Baker
341                   Clerk - Buxhall Parish Council
      Malcolm Baker
341                   Clerk - Buxhall Parish Council
      Malcolm Baker
342                   Atisreal UK
    Andrew Morgan
342 Andrew Morgan     Atisreal UK
342 Andrew Morgan     Atisreal UK
342 Andrew Morgan     Atisreal UK
342                   Atisreal UK
    Andrew Morgan
343                   Town Planning Consultant
    Gordon Terry
343 Gordon Terry      Town Planning Consultant
343 Gordon Terry      Town Planning Consultant
343 Gordon Terry      Town Planning Consultant
343                   Town Planning Consultant
    Gordon Terry
345                   Durrants
    Brian J Belton
345 Brian J Belton    Durrants
345 Brian J Belton    Durrants
345 Brian J Belton    Durrants
345                   Durrants
    Brian J Belton
345                                     Durrants
    Brian J Belton
345 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
345 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
345 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
345                                     Durrants
    Brian J Belton
345                                     Durrants
    Brian J Belton
345 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
345 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
345 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
345                                     Durrants
    Brian J Belton
346 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
346 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
346                                     Durrants
    Brian J Belton
346 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
346 Brian J Belton                      Durrants
346                                     Durrants


    Brian J Belton
346 Brian J Belton                       Durrants
348
    Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348 Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348 Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348 Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348 Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348
    Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348
    Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348
    Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348

    Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
348 Mrs Philpot, Mr & Mrs Scott and Mr &
    Mrs Hudson
349                                      TWGAZE

      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE


      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE


      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE




      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE


      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE
      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE
      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE


      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE
      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE
      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE


      Oliver Chapman
349                                   TWGAZE
      Oliver Chapman
349                             TWGAZE
    Oliver Chapman
350 Mr John Burggy
350




      Mr John Burggy
350

      Mr John Burggy
350




      Mr John Burggy
350



      Mr John Burggy




352 Angela & Trevor Messenger


352 Angela & Trevor Messenger


352 Angela & Trevor Messenger


352 Angela & Trevor Messenger



352 Angela & Trevor Messenger
352 Angela & Trevor Messenger




352 Angela & Trevor Messenger

352 Angela & Trevor Messenger




352 Angela & Trevor Messenger



352 Angela & Trevor Messenger




352 Angela & Trevor Messenger




352 Angela & Trevor Messenger




352 Angela & Trevor Messenger




352 Angela & Trevor Messenger
352 Angela & Trevor Messenger


352 Angela & Trevor Messenger
352 Angela & Trevor Messenger
352 Angela & Trevor Messenger


352 Angela & Trevor Messenger


352 Angela & Trevor Messenger

352 Angela & Trevor Messenger




353 Mr & Mrs J Hutchin




353 Mr & Mrs J Hutchin
353 Mr & Mrs J Hutchin


353 Mr & Mrs J Hutchin
355
    Eileen & Peter Shelford
355


      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355
      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355


      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355
      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355


      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355
      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355


      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355
      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355


      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355
      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355


      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
355



      Eileen & Peter Shelford
356   Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356   Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356   Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356   Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356
    Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356 Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356
    Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356 Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356
    Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
356
    Mr & Mrs I R Whiteside
357




      Eileen & Peter Harkin
357




      Eileen & Peter Harkin
357




      Eileen & Peter Harkin
357




      Eileen & Peter Harkin
357




      Eileen & Peter Harkin
357




      Eileen & Peter Harkin
357

      Eileen & Peter Harkin
357
    Eileen & Peter Harkin
357 Eileen & Peter Harkin
357

      Eileen & Peter Harkin
358                           Chairman - Creeting St Mary Parish
      A S McKelvie            Council
358                           Chairman - Creeting St Mary Parish
      A S McKelvie            Council
358                           Chairman - Creeting St Mary Parish
      A S McKelvie            Council
358                           Chairman - Creeting St Mary Parish
      A S McKelvie            Council
358                           Chairman - Creeting St Mary Parish
      A S McKelvie            Council
359                           SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                           SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                           SCC - Integrated Transport Group
    Mrs Sandra Gage
359 Mrs Sandra Gage           SCC - Integrated Transport Group
359                           SCC - Integrated Transport Group
    Mrs Sandra Gage
359                           SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group


      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



    Mrs Sandra Gage
359 Mrs Sandra Gage     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
    Mrs Sandra Gage
359 Mrs Sandra Gage     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
    Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group


      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



    Mrs Sandra Gage
359 Mrs Sandra Gage     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
    Mrs Sandra Gage
359 Mrs Sandra Gage     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
    Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group


      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group




      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



    Mrs Sandra Gage
359 Mrs Sandra Gage     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group
      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group



      Mrs Sandra Gage
359                     SCC - Integrated Transport Group

      Mrs Sandra Gage
360                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
360 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
360 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
360 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
360                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
361                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
361 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
361 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
361 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
361                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
362                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
362 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
362                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
363                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
363 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
363 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
363 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
363                     Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
363 Nick Palmer         Bidwells
364                     Bidwells
    Liz Beighton
364 Liz Beighton        Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton        Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton        Bidwells
364                     Bidwells
    Liz Beighton
364                     Bidwells
    Liz Beighton
364 Liz Beighton        Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364                 Bidwells
    Liz Beighton
364                 Bidwells
    Liz Beighton
364 Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364                 Bidwells
    Liz Beighton
365                 Bidwells
    Neil Waterson
365 Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365                 Bidwells
    Neil Waterson
366                 Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
366 Nick Palmer     Bidwells
366 Nick Palmer     Bidwells
366 Nick Palmer     Bidwells
366                 Bidwells
    Nick Palmer
367                 Entec UK Ltd.
    Simon Warner
367 Simon Warner    Entec UK Ltd.
367 Simon Warner    Entec UK Ltd.
367 Simon Warner    Entec UK Ltd.
367                 Entec UK Ltd.
    Simon Warner
368                 Savills
    Rebecca Flood
368 Rebecca Flood   Savills
368 Rebecca Flood   Savills
368 Rebecca Flood   Savills
368                 Savills
    Rebecca Flood
368                 Savills
    Rebecca Flood
368 Rebecca Flood   Savills
368 Rebecca Flood   Savills
368 Rebecca Flood   Savills
368                 Savills
    Rebecca Flood
368                 Savills
    Rebecca Flood
368 Rebecca Flood      Savills
368 Rebecca Flood      Savills
368 Rebecca Flood      Savills
368                    Savills
    Rebecca Flood
369                    Andrew Martin Associates
    Julie Cross
369 Julie Cross        Andrew Martin Associates
369 Julie Cross        Andrew Martin Associates
369 Julie Cross        Andrew Martin Associates
369                    Andrew Martin Associates
    Julie Cross
370                    Pegasus
    Gabrielle Rowan
370 Gabrielle Rowan    Pegasus
370 Gabrielle Rowan    Pegasus
370 Gabrielle Rowan    Pegasus
370                    Pegasus
    Gabrielle Rowan
371                    Pegasus
    Jon Jennings
371 Jon Jennings       Pegasus
371 Jon Jennings       Pegasus
371 Jon Jennings       Pegasus
371                    Pegasus
    Jon Jennings
372                    Drivers Jonas

372                    Drivers Jonas
372                    Drivers Jonas
372                    Drivers Jonas
372                    Drivers Jonas

373                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
373 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
373 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
373 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
373                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
374                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
374 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
374 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
374 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
374                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
375                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
375 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
375 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
375 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
375                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
376                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
376 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
376 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
376 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
376                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
377                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
377 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
377 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
377 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
377                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
378                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
378 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
378 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
378 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
378                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
379                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
379 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
379 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
379 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
379                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
380                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
380                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
380 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
380 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
380                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
381                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
381                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
381 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
381 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
381                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
382                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
382                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
382 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
382 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
382                    Peecock & Short
    Georgina Challis
383 John Oakenfold




383 John Oakenfold




383 John Oakenfold
383 John Oakenfold




384 John Oakenfold




384 John Oakenfold




384 John Oakenfold
384 John Oakenfold




385 Anthony M Breen



386 Anthony M Breen



387 Anthony M Breen



388 Anthony M Breen



389 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short




390 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short




391 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short
392 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short




393 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short




394 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short




395 Georgina Challis   Peecock & Short




396 Robert Phillips    dlp Planning Consultants




397 Robert Eburne      Hopkins Homes
    398 Unknown         Strutt and Parker




    399 Unknown         Strutt and Parker




    400 Unknown         Strutt and Parker




    402 Liz Beighton    Bidwells




    408 Magnus Gallie   Savills


        Roy Cook
?       ?               ?
    Type of Representation


Observations
Observations

Observations

Observations
Object
Support
Object
Support
Object



Object


Object



Object
Support

Support
Support




Support
Support

Support
Support

Support


Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support




Support

Object


Object
Object



Object
Object
Object
Object
Object
Object




Object




Object



Object
Object
Object
Object
Support
Object
Object
Support
Support




Support

Object

Object




Object




Object
?
                      Settlement and number


Stradbroke 4h
Stradbroke 5h

Stradbroke 8h

Stradebroke 11h
Laxfield 1h
Laxfield 2h, 3h
Laxfield 4h n
Laxfield 4h s
Creeting St Mary 1h



Creeting St Mary 8h


Creeting St Mary 1h



Creeting St Mary 8h
Needham Market 2h & 6h

Needham Market 3b
Needham Market 7h & 7e




Creeting St Mary 1h
Stradbroke 7h & 3sb

Stradbroke 8h
Stradbroke 2sb & 2h

Stradbroke 7h & 10h


Stradbroke 8h
Stradbroke L - 14h & L - 15
Stradbrofke 11h 12h & 3sb
Stradbroke 2sb & 2h
Stradbroke 4 5 & 6
Stradbroke 8h
Stradbroke L - 14h & L - 15lr




Eye 2h LLB - 7sb NB - 11h

Gislingham 1h


Gislingham LB - 70b
Gislingham LLB - 9h



Gislingham NB - 10h / 3h 5lr
Gislingham NB - 11h & LLB - 8h
Claydon 3h - 4h - 5h - 6h
Claydon 8h - NB 13ob
Claydon NB 14ob
Claydon X18ob




Redgrave 2sb

Redgrave NB 7h




Redgrave 2sb

Redgrave NB 7h

Claydon 3b NB - 14ob, NB - 13ob, 8 h
Bramford 1h
Bramford 1lr
Bramford NB 4lr
Barham 2h, 2lr
Claydon 3b-NB, 140ob
Claydon 8h
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham NB-6lr
Bramford 1h/1lr, NB-3h
Bramford NB 4lr
Bramford NB 5


Gt Blakenham 1e

Gt Blakenham NB 8e

Debenham 2h/e

Debenham 3h, 1lr, 1h

Debenham NB-5lr
Debenham NB-6h
Debenham x 7ob




Stowmarket 14e
Bramford b
Bramford c

Bramford 1h & 1lr


Bramford NB 3h & 1lr

Bramford NB 4lr




Bramford Nb - 3h 1h 1lr NB - 4lr
Bramford NB - 5h
Stradbroke - Urban Capacity Study 03 7h & 10h

Stradbroke 10h
Stowmarket 14e

Stowmarket 7h
Needham Market 5h

Stowmarket 17h

Stowmarket 17h

Wortham NB 3h

Botesdale & Rickinghall All Sites
Botesdale & Rickinghall 4h/LLB - 11h



Rickinghall Inferior 4h 1h 2h 5h LLB - 10h LB - 9h LLB - 11h

Botesdale 1h 1e
Rickinghall & Botesdale LB - 9h
Rickinghall & Botesdale 2h
Rickinghall 1h 2h 4h5h




Stowupland NB 7h & 4h

Stowupland 5e




Stowupland NB 6h


Needham Market 5h

Stowupland
Stowupland 4h NB
Stowupland NB - 7h
Stowupland NB 6h

Stowupland NB 7h & NB 4h




Stowupland NB - 7h/4h

Stowupland 1h & 2h

Stowupland 3h


Stowupland NB 6h



Stowupland NB 7h
Stowupland 14c

Stowupland NB 7h
Stowupland NB 6h
Stowupland NB 7b
Stowupland NB 7h

Stowupland 3h
Stowupland 5e



Stowupland NB 7h & 4h




Stowupland 1h & 2h

Stowupland 3h



Stowupland 5h & 3h
Stowupland 6h
Stowupland NB 7h




Eye 30 2h
Eye 30 LLB 7sb

Bramford L - 2sb

Bramford L - 2sb


Bramford NB - 5h & NB - 5e

Bramford X 6 ob




Bramford -south part




Stowmarket - 73 11h




Wortham - h
Rickinghall - 4h LLB - 11h 1h & 2h
Rickinghall - 5h & LLB -10h LB - 9h


Stowmarket 17h
Stowmarket 17h

Stowupland - 5e or c?

Stowupland - 1h & 2h


Stowupland - 3h
Stowupland NB - 6h


Stowupland NB - 7h & 4h
Wortham - 1h
Stowupland - NB 7h 4h 6h




Stowupland - NB 7h 4h 6h
Mendlesham - 4h 12 lr
Mendlesham - 9h 6h NB 17h


Mendlesham
Stowupland - 3h
Stowupland - 5 e
Stowupland - NB 6h

Mendlesham - 10h


Mendlesham - 5h & 8h 2h

Mendlesham in General




Rickinghall - 1h




Rickinghall - 1h 2h & 5h


Old Newton - Inset 60 7h Land beside Church Road - Burnham
Cottages
Stradbroke - 7h & 10h 3sb 8h 5h 4h 12h




Stowupland - NB - 6h 3h 5e NB - 7h 4h




Stowupland - NB - 6h 3h 5e NB - 7h 4h
Claydon & Barham re schedule of community workshops for
Development Control (DC) Policies and Site Specific Allocations
(SSA) 1/10/07

Barham - 1h
Barham - 1h 2h 3h

Barham - X40B


Stowmarket 14e


Stowupland - 5e 3h NB 6h 1h & 2h NB 7h NB 4h

Rickinghall - 1h
Rickinghall - 4h
Rickinghall - 5h
Botesdale - 1h & 1e



Botesdale - 30B

Stowupland - 3 h
Stowupland - 5e
Stowupland - NB 6h


Walsham-le-Willows - LLB 5h
Stowmarket - 17h

Stowmarket - 17h
Stowmarket - 17h


Stowmarket - 17h

Rickinghall - 4b 1h 2h
Stowupland - 5e & 3h 1h & 2h




Stowupland - NB - 7h 4h


Stowupland - NB 6h

Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h
Stowupland - 3h
Stowupland - NB 6h

Stowupland - NB 7b/4h

Stowupland - 21


Stowupland - 7h
Stowupland - 3h 4h
Stowupland - 6h

Stowupland - 7h




Stowupland - 7h
Stowupland - 14e
Stowupland - 4 h 3h
Stowupland - NB 6h
Stowupland - NB 7h

Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h



Stowupland - NB 7h & 2h

Stowupland - NB 4h
Stowupland - 1h & 2h
Stowupland - NB 7h

Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h
Stowupland - Nb 6h
Stowupland - NB 7h & 4 h

Stowupland - 14e
Stowupland - 4h
Stowupland - 4h & 3h
Stowupland - 5e
Stowupland - 7h
Stowupland - 3h
Stowupland - NB 6h
Stowupland - NB 7h & NB 4h


Stowupland - 14e
Stowupland - NB 4h


Stowupland - NB 7h

Stowupland - NB 7h
Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h
Stowupland - 14e
Stowupland - 4h & 3h
Stowupland - 5e

Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h


Stowupland - NB 1h 2h & 7h
Stowupland - NB 6h

Stowupland - 14e
Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h
Stowupland - 4h
Stowupland - NB 14e
Stowupland - NB 5e & 3h
Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h
Stowupland - 1h & 2h

Stowupland - NB 6h

Stowupland - NB 7h 4h
Stowupland - 1h & 2h
Stowupland - NB 6h

Stowupland - NB 7h & 4h




Stowupland - NB 7h




Stowupland - NB 7h
Stowupland - NB 7h




Stowupland - NB 7h


Wortham - 1h
Wortham - 3h 1h



Wortham



Wortham - 1h

Rickinghall
Redgrave




Rickinghall and Botesdale - 2h Botesdale - 1e Botesdale - 1h
Needham Market

Bramford - NB 3h

Bramford - NB 3h

Stowupland - 1h 2h
Stowupland - 3h

Stowupland - 4h 7h




Stowupland - 4h 7h
Stowupland - 5e

Stowupland - 6h

Old Newton - 17h LLB - 15h 11h *

Old Newton - 1h 10h NB 18h
Old Newton - 2h
Old Newton - 3h

Old Newton - 4h (Part Only)

Old Newton - 5h

Old Newton - 6h

Old Newton - 7h

Old Newton - 8h (North Section)*

Old Newton - 9h (North)

Old Newton - 9h (South Part)
Old Newton - LLB - 12h *

Old Newton - NB - 16h*

Old Newton - X - 19h

Old Newton - X - 19h (South part)

Old Newton - X -19h (North)
Palgrave - 3h
Palgrave - 1sb LLB 13h

Palgrave - 2h LLB 10h

Palgrave - 4h 17h
Palgrave - 5h
Palgrave - 6h
Palgrave - 7h
Palgrave - L 8h
Palgrave - L 90b
Palgrave - LLB 11h
Palgrave - LLB 12h

Palgrave - LLB 14h
Palgrave - NB 16h
Palgrave - X 18h




Stowmarket - 7b 2h 7b 10h 7b 11h




Stowupland - NB 6h
Bedfield - 2h
Bedfield - 3h
Bedfield - 4h
Barham - General


Bedfield - Part OS 130
Stowupland - General
Stowupland - NB 4h

Stowupland - NB 7h


Bramford - PCT - NB 5h 5e

Gt. Blakenham - 2B NB 6lr



Gt. Blakenham - General



Stowupland - NB 4h


Stowupland - NB 7h
14e
NB 4h
NB 7h




Eye - L - 6h

Eye - L - lr 3h

Fressingfield - 3h

Fressingfield - 4h of G Brown


Fressingfield - NB 7h
Needham Market
Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.
Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.
Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.

Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.
Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.
Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.

Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.
Stoke Ash - I have no knowledge of any site number allocated to
my land bid See Map for location.


Onehouse - 12h Woodside Farm area


Onehouse - 1h & 1e L -18h Land at Union Road opposite
Chilton Nursing Home




Onehouse - 9 h 44 hectares at Chilton Leys, Onehouse


Onehouse - 9 h 44 hectares at Chilton Leys, Onehouse




Onehouse - General




Onehouse - General


Onehouse - General



Onehouse - LLB - 20h Chilton Fields Sports Ground
Onehouse - LLB -21h Kingsfield Centre

Onehouse - NB 27h Land at Chilton Leys

Stowmarket - 73 4h Land above the railway along Newton Road.
Stowmarket - 73 x 34 ob/h Land Adjacent to A14 before Tesco
roundabout.


Stowmarket - 74 14e Large area opposite Tesco running down
towards Fisons.
Stowmarket - LB 19h Evelyn Fison House
Stowmarket - NB 28h Red Willows Industrial Park
Stowmarket - NB 30h Danescroft Cottage

Thurston - 4h

Thurston - NB 11h
Old Newton - 10h
Old Newton - 5h
Old Newton - 6h
Old Newton - 7h
Old Newton - 8h
Old Newton - 9h
Old Newton - General
Old Newton - L 11h
Old Newton - LB 12h
Old Newton - LB 13h
Old Newton - LB 14h
Old Newton - LLB 15h
Old Newton - NB 16h




RSPB - Landbirds




Brome - 1e


Thrandeston - Employment Land 1e
Thrandeston - Employment Land 1e




Stoke Ash - Land Bid General




Stoke Ash - Land Bid General



Eye - Site No L-6h



Eye - Sites No 3H, LLB - 8h, NB - 9h , 4h




Eye - Transport

Southolt

Norton - 1h - 7h

Debenham
Stowupland. Stowmarket, Suffolk
Appropriate Mendlesham - L14e
Appropriate Mendlesham - 17h -(9h & 6h)
Appropriate Mendlesham - 2h




Appropriate with care Mendlesham 5h (including 8h)



Most Appropriate Mendlesham - 1h

Not appropriate Mendlesham - 12lr/4h

Not appropriate Mendlesham - LLB - 16h
Not appropriate Mendlesham - 10h
Not appropriate Mendlesham - 11e
Not appropriate Mendlesham - 13sb
Not appropriate Mendlesham - 3h/3lr
Not appropriate Mendlesham - 7h

Not appropriate Mendlesham - LLB 15h


Barham


Barham - X40b NB 3h 2h 1h

Great Blakenham


Worlingworth




Stradbroke - 4h 5h 6h 8h


Stradbroke - L - 14h L - 15h - 2sb & 2L
Botesdale - 1e
Botesdale - 1h     Plots in Chapel Lane (as highlighted on the
attached map)


Botesdale - 2h Back Hills/B1113




Botesdale - 3ob Fen Lane


Botesdale - Diss Road
Rickinghall - 1h
Rickinghall - 1sb
Rickinghall - 2h
Rickinghall - 3h

Rickinghall - 4h
Rickinghall - 5h

Rickinghall - 6h
Rickinghall - 7h

Rickinghall - 8e
Rickinghall - LB - 9h
Rickinghall - LLB - 10h
Rickinghall - LLB - 11h

Rickinghall - NB - 12h


Bramford - NB - 3h

Bramford - NB - 3h


Bramford - NB - 3h & 1h/1LR



Bramford - NB - 3h and 1h/1LR




Bramford - NB - 3h and 1h/1LR
Bramford - NB - 3h and 1h/1LR



Bramford - NB - 3h & 1h/1LR


Bramford - NB - 3h & 1h/1LR (Land to the south of Fitzgerald
Road, Bramford)




Stradbroke - New Street/Church Street site Code 7h & 10h Area
4534 - 9139
Norton - 1h - 7h
Elmswell - LLB - 21h

Elmswell -11 ob

Elmswell -11 ob

Needham Market - 10e & 15e


Needham Market - 11b
Needham Market - 12h
Needham Market - 1h
Needham Market - 2h & 6h
Needham Market - 3h & 4h


Needham Market - 3h & 4h

Needham Market - 5h & 14H
Needham Market - 8h

Needham Market - 9h
Stowupland - NB 6h
Stowupland - NB 6h

Stowupland - NB 6h



Drinkstone
Drinkstone

Redgrave - L 4h
Redgrave - NB 7h

Thorndon


Thurston - 1h
Thurston - 1h
Thurston - 1h
Thurston - 1h
Thurston - 1h

Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - NB - 11h

Thurston - NB - 12h
Thurston - NB - 12h
Thurston - NB - 12h
Thurston - NB - 12h

Thurston - 7h
Thurston - 7h
Thurston - 7h
Thurston - 7h
Thurston - 7h
Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - NB - 11h

Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - NB - 11h

Thurston - NB - 11h
Thurston - Site NB 11h


Fressingfield Site - 3h




Fressingfield Site - 3h




Fressingfield Site - 3h
Fressingfield Site - 3h

Fressingfield Site - 3h




Fressingfield Sites - 4h & NB 7h




Gt Finborough - L 2h


Stowupland - 1h & 2h
Stowupland - NB - 17h
Stowupland - NB 6h

Bramford - 1h & 1lr
Bramford - 1h & 1lr




Creeting St Mary - 10b




Creeting St Mary - 10b


Wilby -LLB - 1ob




Needham Market - Plan (Inset 55a) - Zone 3h



Needham Market - Plan (Inset 55a) - Zone 3h

Debenham - 1h

Debenham - 1lr


Debenham - 2h & 2e

Debenham - 3h


Debenham - 4h

Debenham - NB - 5lr


Debenham - NB - 6h
Debenham - x7ob

Stowmarket - 17h


Stowmarket - LLB - 20h


Thorndon, Nr. Eye



Thorndon, Nr. Eye




Eye - LLB - 7sb, NB - 11h, L - 6h (and any further development
to the North West of Eye


Re Victoria Hill/B1077




Stradbroke - 12h - Least appropriate


Stradbroke - 2sb(h) - Most appropriate
Stradbroke - 4h & 6h - Most appropriate


Stradbroke - 8h

Stradbroke - 8h

Stradbroke - L - 14h
Stradbroke - L - 14h


Thurston - 5h & LLB - 9h
Thurston - 6h and 4h



Thurston - NB - 11h




Onehouse - LLB 27h Land at Chilton Leys




Palgrave - 4h On the outline plan displayed on the Parish
Council notice board.




Palgrave - 6h on the outline plan



Walsham-le-Willows - 2h & 2e

Walsham-le-Willows - Nb 8h
Combs Stowmarket - 73 - 2h 73 -10h & 73 - 11h


Combs Stowmarket - 73 - 2h 73 -10h & 73 - 11h




Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob




Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob




Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob


Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob
Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob
Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob
Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob
Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob
Elmswell - Land Bid 11ob
Bacton - 10h
Bacton - 11h
Bacton - 12h
Bacton - 13h
Bacton - 1h 2h 4h

Bacton - 3h

Bacton - 5h

Bacton - 6h
Bacton - 7h




Bacton - 8h 8e & 8ob

Bacton - 9h/e
Bacton - LB14h
Bacton - LLB15

Bacton - NB 17e




Debenham - 1h 2h &2e 3h 4h NB - 6h 1LR X70b




Bramford - 1h NB - 3h & 1LR

Bramford - NB - 4lr X6 ob


Bramford - NB - 5h & NB - 5e


Woolpit
Thurston



Thurston - 11h



Thurston - 2h


Debenham
Debenham - 1h
Debenham - 2h & 2e
Debenham - 5h

Debenham - NB 5lr
Debenham - NB 6h
Debenham - X70b
Bacton - Land to the north of Middlegate Farm with road frontage
to B1113
Cotton - Land near Cotton Chapel between Broad View and
Long Meadow Cottage.

Bramford

Stowupland

Stowupland - 5e 3h N6 - 6h



Stowupland - N6 - 7h 4h
Bramford - X6ob

Bramford - Fitzgerald Road
Bramford - Scotts and former cement works Claydon
Bramford - NB - 5h

Bramford - NB -4h 1h/1lr NB 3h
Barham - 1h
Bramford - NB - 5h & NB - 5e - (Most appropriate)




Bramford - 1h & 1lr, NB - 3h & NB -4lr - (Least appropriate)




Bramford - X 6ob




Combs Stowmarket - 73 2h 73 10h        73 11h




Combs Stowmarket - 73 2h 73 10h        73 11h
Eye - L - 6h


Eye - L - 6h




Eye - L - 6h




Eye - L - 6h
Eye - L - 6h




Botesdale - 2h
Botesdale 1h & 1e


Rickinghall - 2h & 3h
Rickinghall - 4h, 5h, 7h, 1h®

Rickinghall - 4h, 6h - LB - 9h

Stonham Aspal - 2h - Doe's Field



Stonham Aspal - 2h - Doe's Field


Stonham Aspal - 2h - Doe's Field

Needham Market Plan - (Inset 55a) - Zone 3h


Needham Market Plan - (Inset 55a) - Zone 3h




Needham Market Plan - (Inset 55a) - Zone 3h
Debenham - X7ob



Debenham - 1h
Debenham - 1lr
Debenham - 2h & 2e
Debenham - 3h
Debenham - 4h
Debenham - All Sites




Debenham - NB - 5lr
Debenham - NB - 6h
Debenham - X7ob
Onehouse & Stowmarket - 73 - 12h/e, 73 - 9h, 73 LLB - 20h

Barham & Claydon - 2h & 2lr


Barham & Claydon - 4h & 5h

Barham & Claydon - 4h & 5h



Barham & Claydon - NB - 11h


Barham & Claydon - NB - 3h, 2h, 1h & X4ob
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h

Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h
Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h




Debenham - NB 6h & 2he



Debenham - X70b - Opposite Primary School
Bramford - Fitzgerald Road/Loraine Way (Football Pitch)

Bramford - Fitzgerald Road (Housing Development)


Bramford - Paper Mill Lane (Scotts)
Creeting St Peter
Creeting St Peter - general objections
Creeting St Peter - LLB 2h
Creeting St Peter - NB 3h

Creeting St Peter - Sewer
Creeting St Peter - Transport
Old Newton with Dagworth and Gipping - 1h 8h 10h 13h 16h &
18h

Coddenham - 1ob Land at Pipps Ford
Coddenham - 20b Private garden

Coddenham - LLB - 3ob Lane via Love Lane

Coddenham - NB - 50b Land off Mill Lane

Coddenham - NB 6h Land off Norwich Road



Coddenham - Sites east and north of Green Hill



Coddenham - X7ob Site south of High Street


Bramford - L - 2sb X6 - ob

Bramford - L - 2sb X6 - ob


Stowmarket - 73 2h 73 10h - Intrusion into the countryside

Stowmarket - 73 11h
Stowmarket - 73 2h 73 10h - Impacts from development
Needham Market - 10e & 15e
Needham Market - 1h

Needham Market - 2h & 6h
Needham Market - 4h
Needham Market - 5h & NB 14h

Needham Market - 7h/e
Needham Market - 8h
Needham Market - 9h

Needham Market - LLB - 11sb

Needham Market - Unilever Site
Needham Marklet - LLB - 12h


Debenham




Ringshall - 2h Land adjacent to Lower Farm Road




Ringshall - 2h Land adjacent to Lower Farm Road

Ringshall - 2h Land adjacent to Lower Farm Road


Thurston - 5h and LLB 9h - for

Thurston - NB 11h - against
Thurston - NB 2h - against
Bramford
Bramford
Bramford
Bramford

Bramford
Bramford
Bramford

Bramford
Bramford
Bramford
Bramford
Bramford - NB - 3h, 1h, 1lr, NB - 4lr & X6ob
Bramford - NB - 3h, 1h, 1lr, NB - 4lr & X6ob

Bramford - NB - 5h & NB - 5e


Buxhall - LLB - 2h


Buxhalll - 1h


Buxhalll - LLB - 3h

Buxhall - Generally

Cotton - 3sb


Cotton - 4sb

Cotton - LB - 7h
Claydon
Claydon - NB - 11h
Claydon - NB - 13ob, NB - 14ob & 6h

Claydon - NB - 13ob, NB - 14ob & 6h

Claydon - NB - 13ob, NB - 14ob & 6h
Creeting St Mary - LLB - 8h




Debenham
Debenham
Debenham - 2h, 2e, 1h, 1lr, 3h & NB - 6h


Debenham - 2h, 2e, 1h, 1lr, 3h & NB - 6h

Debenham - X7ob

Debenham



Debenham - 2h, 2e, NB - 6h & X7ob




Debenham - NB - 6h

Debenham - NB - 6h




Debenham - NB - 6h



Debenham - NB - 6h


Debenham - NB - 6h

Woolpit - 4h, LB - 9h & 9ob

Woolpit - 4h, LB - 9h & 9ob
Woolpit - 4h, LB - 9h & 9ob




Woolpit - 4h, LB - 9h & 9ob




Eye - 3h
Eye - L 6h


Eye - L 6h


Debenham
Debenham - 2h & 2e NB 6h
Debenham - 3h 1lr 1h X7ob
Debenham - 4h
Palgrave - 1sb LLB 13h 3h 5h 6h L 8 h LLB 11h LLB 12h 16h
18h

Palgrave - 2h
Palgrave - 2h 17h 7h LLB 14h

Palgrave - 4h 17h


Palgrave - 4h

Onehouse

Onehouse - 12h 12e


Onehouse - 1h 1e L -18h
Onehouse - 9h




Onehouse - 9h


Onehouse - LLB 20h

Onehouse - NB 27h

Onehouse - NB 28h

Needham Market - 10e (Ext. to Lion Barn)

Needham Market - 13 (Beacon Hill interchange)

Needham Market - 1h (end of Stowmarket Road)
Needham Market - 2h & 6h (rear of Foxglove Avenue and
Doctors Surgery)
Needham Market - 3h 4h (Paget Close long and short
Plantation)

Needham Market - 5h & NB 14h (rear of Chalkeith)


Needham Market - 7e & 7h (Chalkpits site ) (Brownfield site)

Needham Market - 8h (Jacks Green)

Needham Market - 9h (Mill Lane)

Needham Market - LB 11sb (Near Hawksmill)

Needham Market - LLB 12h (Hill House Lane)
Needham Market - Unilever site centre.

Needham Marklet - 15 (Beyond Lion Barn dustbin lorry depot
B1113)




Buxhall - 1h (Land to west of Mill Road)



Buxhall - 1h (Land to west of Mill Road)

Buxhall - 1h (Land to west of Mill Road)



Buxhall - 1h (Land to west of Mill Road)




Buxhall - 1LLB -3h (Land off Rattlesden Road to the North and
East of Leeks Cottage).


Buxhall - 1LLB -3h (Land off Rattlesden Road to the North and
East of Leeks Cottage).
Buxhall - 1LLB -3h (Land off Rattlesden Road to the North and
East of Leeks Cottage).


Buxhall - 1LLB -3h (Land off Rattlesden Road to the North and
East of Leeks Cottage).



Buxhall - 1LLB -3h (Land off Rattlesden Road to the North and
East of Leeks Cottage).
Buxhall - 1LLB -3h (Land off Rattlesden Road to the North and
East of Leeks Cottage).
Stowupland - 1h 2h 3h




Stowupland - 4h & 7h




Stowupland - 4h & 7h



Stowupland - 4h & 7h




Stowupland - 4h & 7h




Stowupland - 4h & 7h

Stowupland - 5e




Stowupland - 6h
Debenham - 1h 2h & 2e 3h 4h NB - 6h 1lr X70d


Needham Market



Needham Market - 5h (land off Chalkeith Road)


Needham Market - 1h (land beyond 96 Stowmarket Road)


Needham Market - 3h (Hill House Farm)

Needham Market - 4h (land at end of Platten Close)

Needham Market - 7e (land at Needham Quarry)
Needham Market - 7h (land at Needham Chalk Quarry)

Needham Market - 8h (St Mary's Gardens and St Mary's Road)

Needham Martket - 2h & 6h (land off Barking Road)
Debenham
Debenham - 3h, 1lr, 1h, 2h, 2e & NB - 6h


Debenham - X7ob
Debenham - X7ob

Woolpit

Woolpit


Woolpit

Woolpit - 1e
Woolpit - 1h

Woolpit - 1sb, 2sb & 3h



Woolpit - 2h




Woolpit - 4h




Woolpit - 4h


Woolpit - 5e




Woolpit - 5h




Woolpit - 6e


Woolpit - 6h


Woolpit - 7e



Woolpit - 7e
Woolpit - 8h & 8ob
Woolpit - LB - 9h & 9ob



Woolpit - NB - 10ob


Woolpit - NB - 11h
Woolpit - NB - 8ob




Woolpit - NB - 8ob




Woolpit - NB - 9h

Woopit - 3h



Rattlesden



Rattlesden - 10h & NB - 18h (land to the north of Rattlesden)


Rattlesden - 10h & NB - 18h (land to the north of Rattlesden)
Rattlesden - 10h & NB - 18h (land to the north of Rattlesden)


Rattlesden - 1sb (south side of village between Rising Sun Hill
and Workhouse Lane)

Rattlesden - 1sb (south side of village between Rising Sun Hill and Workhouse Lane)



Rattlesden - 2sb & 2h (all or part of land between 'Aurelia' and
the windmill)
Rattlesden - 2sb & 2h (all or part of land between 'Aurelia' and
the windmill)

Rattlesden - 5h (south half of Half Moon Street)


Rattlesden - 7h (site adjacent to Brook House)

Rattlesden - 9h (land off Top Road)



Rattlesden - L - 12h (land opposite Edgars Farm, Top Road)
Rattlesden - L - 13h (land on the west side of Rising Sun Hill)
Rattlesden - L - 14h (land alongside the east of Rising Sun Hill)


Rattlesden - NB - 16h (land at Peddars Way off School Lane)

Rattlesden - NB - 17h (land adjacent to Rising Sun Hill)


Bramford - 1h, NB - 3h, 3e & NB - 4lr

Bramford - 1h, NB - 3h, 3e & NB - 4lr


Bramford - 1h, NB - 3h, 3e & NB - 4lr

Bramford

Bramford - NB - 3h, NB - 4lr, 1h & 1lr

Bramford - NB - 5h & NB - 5e

Bramford - X6ob

Bacton - 3h, 5h, 6h, 7h, 10h & 12h

Bacton - 4h, 8h & 9h
Cotton - LB - 5h, 1sb & h




Old Newton - 1h, 8h, 10h, 13h, 16, & 18h

Eye - 3h


Eye - 4h & NB - 9h

Eye - L - 6h

Eye - LLB - 8h




Bramford - NB 3h




Bramford - 1h/1LR




Bramford - 1h/1LR
Bramford - 1h/1LR




Bramford - 1h/1LR



Bramford - L 2sb




Bramford - NB 3h




Bramford - NB 3h




Bramford - NB 3h

Bramford - NB 3h 1h/1lr NB 4LR X6ob
Bramford - NB 4LR




Bramford - NB 4LR




Bramford - NB 4LR




Bramford - NB 4LR




Bramford - NB 4LR

Bramford - NB 5h NB 5e




Bramford - NB 5h NB 5e




Bramford - NB 5h NB 5e
Bramford - NB 5h NB 5e




Bramford - NB 5h NB 5e




Bramford - NB 5h NB 5e




Bramford - NB 5h NB 5e




Bramford - X 60b




Bramford - X 60b



Stowmarket - 73 11h (Poplar Hill)




Occold - 1h 2h 3h LB5 - sb
Somersham - 2h




Somersham Grid Reference 608402E and 248740N
Mendlesham - 1h
Mendlesham - 2h

Mendlesham - 3h/lr



Mendlesham - 4h

Mendlesham - 6h/9h
Mendlesham - 8h




Debenham - 1h 2h 2e 3h NB 6h 1LR X7ob
Debenham - 4h
Debenham - NB 5lr
Mendlesham - 2h


Mendlesham - 3h/lr

Mendlesham - 4h

Mendlesham - 5h 1h

Mendlesham - 6h 9h
Mendlesham - 8h




Battisford Tye - NB 5h
Battisford Tye - NB 5h




Battisford Tye - 2sb


Battisford Tye - 2sb




Battisford Tye - NB 6h




Battisford Tye - NB 10h




Battisford Tye - NB 10h




Battisford Tye - NB 11h




Battisford Tye - NB 11h

Battisford Tye - NB 3h
Battisford Tye - NB 4h


Battisford Tye - NB 4h


Battisford Tye - NB 6h


Battisford Tye - NB 7h




Battisford Tye - NB 8h




Battisford Tye - NB 8h




Battisford Tye - NB 9h




Battisford Tye - NB 9h




Battisford Tye - X12h
Battisford Tye - X12h




Combs - 1h




Combs - 2h




Combs - 3h




Combs - 4h
Combs - 5h




Combs - 6h

Combs - 6h




Combs - NB 7h




Stowmarket - 10h




Stowmarket - 11h
Stowmarket - 2h




Stowmarket - 5h


Stowmarket - 5h




Stowmarket - 5LR




Stowmarket - 5LR


Stowmarket - 5LR
Stowmarket - 16e

Stowmarket - 16e

Stowmarket - 16e
Stowmarket - 16e
Stowmarket - 16e
Gt Blakenham - 1e


Gt Blakenham - LB - 5h

Laxfield - 1h
Laxfield - 2h & 3h (Bickers Hill Road)




Laxfield - 4h


Laxfield - lh & 4h
Laxfield - 1h
Laxfield - 4h
Laxfield - 2h & 3h (Bickers Hill Road)
Laxfield - 2h & 3h (Bickers Hill Road)
Laxfield - 2h & 3h (Bickers Hill Road)
Laxfield - 2h & 3h (Bickers Hill Road)
Laxfield - 2h & 3h (Bickers Hill Road)
Stowmarket - 2h & 10h


Stowmarket - 2h & 10h


Stowmarket - 2h & 10h


Stowmarket - 2h & 10h

Stowmarket - 2h & 10h

Debenham
Debenham - 4h, X7ob & NB - 5lr
Debenham 3h, 1lr & 1h
Debenham 3h, 1lr & 1h




Debenham - NB - 6h
Debenham - NB - 6h




Debenham - NB - 6h




Debenham - NB - 6h




Debenham - NB - 6h



Debenham - NB - 6h


Gislingham - 1h & 6h
Gislingham - 1h & 6h



Gislingham - 1h & 6h

Gislingham - 2h


Gislingham - 2h


Gislingham - 2h


Gislingham - 2h & 4h
Gislingham - 4h

Eye
Eye - L - 6h
Eye - LLB - 8h
Eye - LLB - 8h & 3h
Eye - NB - 9h & 4h
Claydon - 1h 1LR 8h

Claydon - 6h



Claydon - NB 13 ob NB 1406/3h 6h




Rickinghall - 1h 5h LLB 10h      LLB - 11h

Wetheringsett cum Brockford - 3 (A-D)




Debenham - 1h 4h




Debenham - 3h

Debenham - NB 6h
Debenham - NB 5LR


Eye - 4h NB 9h LLB 8h 3h

Norton - 2h



Bramford - opposite Fitzgerald Road
Debenham - 4h (Old Book Green, Cherry Tree Pub)



Debenham - 4h (Old Book Green, Cherry Tree Pub)
Mendlesham & Villages on A1120
Stowupland - 1h, 2h & 3h
Stowupland - 4h & 7h




Stowupland - 5e

Stowupland - 6h

Mendlesham - 9h, 6h, 8h, 5h, 4h, 3h, 7h, 10h & 11e




Mendlesham - 9h, 6h, 8h, 5h, 4h, 3h, 7h, 10h & 11e

Mendlesham - 9h, 6h, 8h, 5h, 4h, 3h, 7h, 10h & 11e

Mendlesham - 9h, 6h, 8h, 5h, 4h, 3h, 7h, 10h & 11e

Thurston - 11h


Thurston - 2h


Thurston - 4h

Thurston - 7h


Thurston - 8h


Thorndon
Thorndon


Thorndon


Hoxne - 3h

Hoxne - 6h

Hoxne - 6h & 3h



Hoxne - 6h & 3h



Stowmarket - 10h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 10h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 10h - GF    Reject

Stowmarket - 10h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 10h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 11h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 11h - GF    Reject

Stowmarket - 11h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 12h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 17h - GF    Reject

Stowmarket - 17h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 17h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 18h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 18h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 18h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 18h - GF    Reject

Stowmarket - 2h - GF     Reject
Stowmarket - 2h - GF     Reject
Stowmarket - 2h - GF     Reject

Stowmarket - 3h - PDL?    Reject



Stowmarket - 4h - GF     Reject
Stowmarket - 4h - GF     Reject
Stowmarket - 4h - GF    Reject

Stowmarket - 5h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 5h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 5h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 7h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 7h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 8h - PDL   Reject
Stowmarket - 8h - PDL   Reject
Stowmarket - 9h - GF    Allocate




Stowmarket - LB - 19h - PDL Allocate
Stowmarket - LLB - 20h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h -
if beneficial
Stowmarket - LLB - 20h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h -
if beneficial
Stowmarket - LLB - 20h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h -
if beneficial
Stowmarket - LLB - 20h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h -
if beneficial
Stowmarket - LLB - 20h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h -
if beneficial
Stowmarket - LLB - 20h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h -
if beneficial
Stowmarket - LLB - 21h - PDL Reject

Stowmarket - LLB - 21h - PDL Reject
Stowmarket - LLB - 21h - PDL Reject

Stowmarket - LLB - 22h - PDL Reject
Stowmarket - LLB - 23h - PDL Allocate
Stowmarket - LLB - 24h - PDL Allocate
Stowmarket - LLB - 25h - PDL Reject
Stowmarket - LLB - 25h - PDL Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 26h - PDL Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 27h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h
– if beneficial
Stowmarket - NB - 27h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h
– if beneficial
Stowmarket - NB - 27h - PDL? Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h
– if beneficial
Stowmarket - NB - 27h - PDL?      Allocate (in assoc. with adj. 9h
– if beneficial

Stowmarket - NB - 28h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 28h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 28h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 30h - PDL    Reject

Stowmarket - NB - 30h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 30h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 30h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 30h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 31h - PDL    Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 32h - GF     Reject

Stowmarket - NB - 32h - GF        Reject
Stowmarket - NB - 32h - GF        Reject

Stowmarket - NB - 32h - GF        Reject
Stowmarket - X34h - GF            Reject

Stowmarket - X34h - GF            Reject

Stowmarket - X34h - GF            Reject
Stowmarket - X34h - GF            Reject
Stowmarket -1h - GF      Reject
Stowmarket -1h - GF      Reject
Stowmarket -1h - GF      Reject
Stowmarket -1h - GF      Reject

Stowmarket -1h - GF      Reject


Stowmarket - 12h - GF    Reject


Debenham - 3h

Debenham - 1h
Debenham - 1lr

Debenham - 4h

Debenham - 2h & 2e

Debenham - NB - 5lr

Debenham - X7ob
Debenham NB - 6h


Debenham - 3h, 1h, 2h/2e, 6h and X7ob
Debenham - 3h, 1h, 2h/2e, 6h and X7ob



Debenham - 3h, 1h, 2h/2e, 6h and X7ob


Debenham
Debenham - X7ob
Debenham - 5lr
Debenham - 3h



Debenham - 1h & 1lr


Debenham - 2h & 2e
Debenham - NB - 6h


Stradbroke - Bid 12h (Cottage Farm)

Fressingfield - 1sb (Low)


Fressingfield - 2h (High)

Fressingfield - 3h (Medium)
Fressingfield - 4h (Low)



Fressingfield - LB 5sb (Medium)
Fressingfield - LLB 6h (Low)



Fressingfield - NB 7h (High)

Needham Market - 10e

Needham Market - 1h
Needham Market - 2h 6h

Needham Market - 3h

Needham Market - 4h

Needham Market - 5h

Needham Market - 7h 7e

Needham Market - 8h

Needham Market - 9h

Needham Market - LB 11sb

Needham Market - LB 13ob

Needham Market - LLB 12h

Needham Market - Unilever Site, High Street.

Needham Market - X15e




Felsham - Land suggested for future development




Bramford - Fitzgerald Road




Worlingworth
Debenham


Elmswell




Debenham - 3h

Bramford




Bramford




Earl Stonham - 1e Employment          NB 1lr - Leisure and
Recreation


Earl Stonham - 1e Employment          NB 1lr - Leisure and
Recreation




Needham Market - Former Timber Yard
Needham Market - Former Timber Yard




Walsham le Willows - NB 7h 8h



Rickinghall Inferior - 1h and adjacent site and site opposite
adjacent site

Wyverstone - 1h
Wyverstone - 2h
Wyverstone - 3h
Wyverstone - 4h
Wyverstone - LB 5s




Elmswell - 5h




Elmswell - 5h




Elmswell - 5h - General policy and sustainability considerations
Elmswell - 5h - Landscape character



Elmswell - 5h - Access and traffic generation




Botesdale - 1e




Botesdale - 1e




Laxfield - 2 h 3h (re Bickers Hill Proposal)




Laxfield - 2 h 3h (re Bickers Hill Proposal)


Laxfield - 2 h 3h (re Bickers Hill Proposal)
Laxfield - 2 h 3h (re Bickers Hill Proposal)




Mendlesham


Mendlesham
Mendlesham - 1 h
Mendlesham - 2h
Mendlesham - 5h

Mendlesham - 6h

Mendlesham - 7h

Mendlesham - 9h
Mendlesham - 10h
Mendlesham - 15h
Mendlesham - 16h
Mendlesham - 17h
Mendlesham - 14e
Stowmarket - 2h
Stowmarket - 2h




Stowmarket - 10h




Stowmarket - 10h




Stowmarket - 11h




Stowmarket - 11h
Claydon - 3h (Land bids on The Slade)


Claydon - 4h (Land bids on The Slade)


Claydon - 5h (Land bids on The Slade)


Claydon   -    6h (Land bids on The Slade)
Claydon    -   8h
Claydon   -    1h
Claydon    -   1lr

Claydon - NB 11h (North of The Slade)


Great Blakenham - 1e (Addison Way)




Claydon - 1h/1lr (Fronting Church Lane)




Claydon - 3h (Fronting Church Lane)




Claydon - 6h (Fronting Church Lane)




Claydon - 8h (Fronting Church Lane)




Claydon - NB 13ob (Fronting Church Lane
Claydon - NB 14ob
Thurston - 4h
Thurston - 4h
Thurston - 4h
Thurston - 4h
Thurston - 4h
Debenham
Debenham - 3h

Debenham - NB - 6h

Debenham - 7ob

Debenham - 2h & 2e
Debenham - 1h & 1lr


Debenham - NB - 5lr

      Thurston - 2h

Thurston - 2h

Thurston - 2h
Thurston - 2h
Thurston - 2h
Thurston - 2h

Debenham
Debenham
Debenham
Debenham - NB - 5lr

Debenham - NB - 5lr

Debenham - 4h

Debenham - 4h


Debenham

Debenham
Debenham
Debenham
Debenham

Debenham
Debenham - NB - 6h

Debenham - 2h & 2e
Debenham - X7ob


Debenham - 1h
Debenham - 1LB
Debenham - 3h
Debenham
Debenham
Debenham
Debenham
Debenham - 7ob




Debenham - 1h
Debenham - 1lr
Debenham - 3h
Debenham - 6h
Debenham - 5lr

Debenham - 2h & 2e
Thwaite - X30b


Thwaite - X30b

Yaxley - 3h


Yaxley - 3h

Stowmarket




Woolpit - 4h
Woolpit - 4h


Woolpit - 4h


Woolpit - 4h




Woolpit - 4h


Woolpit - 4h



Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr


Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr


Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr


Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr

Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr
Weybread - 1lr



Weybread - 1lr


Weybread - 1lr



Weybread - 1lr

Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e

Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e


Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e

Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e



Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e

Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e

Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Botesdale/Rickinghall - 1e
Stowmarket - 3h
Stowmarket - 4h
Stowmarket - 17h
Stowmarket - 15e
Stowmarket - 15e

Stowmarket - 15e

Stowmarket - 15e




Stowmarket - 15e

Stowmarket - 15e


Stowmarket - 15e

Stowmarket - 15e
Gt Finborough - 1sb
Gt Finborough - 2h
Gt Finborough - LLB - 3h
Gt Finborough - NB - 4h
Gt Finborough - NB - 5h
Norton, Little Green - X80b

Norton, Little Green - X80b


Norton, Little Green - X80b

Norton, Little Green - X80b
Norton, Little Green - X80b
Norton, Little Green - X80b
Norton, Little Green - X80b
Norton, Little Green - X80b
Buxhall - LLB - 2h/2e




Buxhall - LLB - 2h/2e

Buxhall - 1h

Buxhall - LLB - 3h

Mendlesham - LLB - 16h

Mendlesham - LLB - 16h
Mendlesham - LLB - 16h
Mendlesham - LLB - 16h
Mendlesham - LLB - 16h

Stowmarket - 4h

Stowmarket - 4h
Stowmarket - 4h
Stowmarket - 4h
Stowmarket - 4h

Palgrave - 3h (clarification)

Palgrave - 3h (clarification)
Palgrave - 3h (clarification)
Palgrave - 3h (clarification)
Palgrave - 3h (clarification)
Palgrave - 3h (part) + new area

Palgrave - 3h (part) + new area
Palgrave - 3h (part) + new area
Palgrave - 3h (part) + new area
Palgrave - 3h (part) + new area

Palgrave - 3h

Palgrave - 3h
Palgrave - 3h
Palgrave - 3h
Palgrave - 3h

Stradbroke
Stradbroke - 4h
Stradbroke - L - 4h

Stradbroke - 5h
Stradbroke - 5L
Stradbroke - 5L



Stradbroke - 6h
Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h


Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h

Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h

Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h

Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h

Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h


Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h


Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h
Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h



Haughley - 1sb/ob & 7h

Eye Airfield - 1e


Eye Airfield - 1e



Eye Airfield - 1e



Eye Airfield - 1e




Eye - 2h



Eye - 2h

Eye - 2h

Eye - L - 6h



Eye - L - 6h

Eye - L - 6h

Eye - NB - 11h



Eye - NB - 11h
Eye - NB - 11h

Gt Blakenham - X7h
Gt Blakenham - X7h




Gt Blakenham - X7h


Gt Blakenham - X7h




Gt Blakenham - X7h




Claydon - 1h ( Land off Lime Quarry Site) (outside SB)

Claydon - 2h/Lr (Land currently outside SB Norwich Road
Barham (not Claydon as stated on list)

Claydon - 3h (Revision of SB to incorporate Residential
development (outside SB)

Claydon - 4h (Revision of SB to incorporate Residential
development (outside SB)


Claydon - 4h (Revision of SB to incorporate Residential
development (outside SB)
Claydon - 5h (Residential development (outside SB)




Claydon - 6h (Residential development land (outside SB)
Claydon - 8h (Residential development at rear of houses west of
in Church Lane.



Claydon - 8h (Residential development at rear of houses west of
in Church Lane.


Claydon - LLB - 9h (Residential/holiday home development west
of Old Ipswich Rd




Claydon - NB - 11h (Residential development)



Claydon - 7e (Employment development - land currently outside
the SB)




Claydon - NB - 1, NB - 10e & NB - 12e (Land off Old Ipswich
road adjacent to Hill View Business Park)




Claydon - 16e (Land off Paper Mill Lane adjacent to Travel Inn
Claydon - 1lr (Land above Lime Quarry)


Claydon - NB -10lr (Land off Old Norwich Rd)
Claydon - NB - 15lr
Claydon - X17lr


Claydon - NB - 13ob


Claydon - NB - 14ob
Claydon - X18ob (Land between A14 & Paper Mill Lane Pump
House)




Badwell Ash, Long Thurlow - 2h (46)




Badwell Ash, Long Thurlow - 2h (46)
Badwell Ash, Long Thurlow - 2h (46)


Badwell Ash, Long Thurlow - 2h (46)
Stradbroke - 14h

Stradbroke - 14h



Stradbroke - 14h
Stradbroke - 14h




Stradbroke - 15lr

Stradbroke - 15lr



Stradbroke - 15lr




Stradbroke - 15lr




Stradbroke - 4h

Stradbroke - 4h



Stradbroke - 4h




Stradbroke - 4h




Stradbroke - 5h

Stradbroke - 5h
Stradbroke - 5h




Stradbroke - 5h




Stradbroke - 6h

Stradbroke - 6h



Stradbroke - 6h




Stradbroke - 6h




Stradbroke - 8h

Stradbroke - 8h



Stradbroke - 8h




Stradbroke - 8h




Botesdale - 2h
Botesdale - 2h
Botesdale - 2h
Botesdale - 2h
Botesdale - 1e

Botesdale - 1e
Botesdale - 1e

Botesdale - 1e
Botesdale - 1e

Botesdale - 1e

Botesdale - 1h




Botesdale - 1h




Botesdale - 1h




Botesdale - 1h




Botesdale - 1h
Botesdale - 1h




Botesdale - 1h


Botesdale - 1e

Botesdale - 1e
Botesdale - 2h


Creeting St Mary

Needham Market - 8h

Needham Market - 8h

Needham Market - NB - 13ob

Needham Market - 2h, 5h & 5lr

Creeting St Peter - 1e




Creeting St Peter - 1e




Creeting St Peter - 1e

Creeting St Peter - 1e
Creeting St Peter - 1e

Creeting St Peter - 1e
Creeting St Peter - 1e




Creeting St Peter - 1e




Creeting St Peter - 1e



Creeting St Peter - 1e




Creeting St Peter - 1e


Creeting St Peter - 1e




Creeting St Peter - 1e
Creeting St Peter - 1e




Creeting St Peter - 1e

Creeting St Peter - 1e


Creeting St Peter - 1e
Creeting St Peter - 1e


Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob

Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob
Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob

Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob



Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob
Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob


Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob
Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob

Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob


Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob




Woolpit (94c) - NB - 8ob


Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob

Needham Market - NB - 13ob
Needham Market - NB - 13ob
Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob



Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob


Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob
Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob

Needham Market - NB - 13ob
Needham Market - NB - 13ob




Needham Market - NB - 13ob


Elmswell - NB - 23h

Elmswell - NB - 23h
Elmswell - NB - 23h
Elmswell - NB - 23h
Elmswell - NB - 23h

Fressingfield - 2h

Fressingfield - 2h
Fressingfield - 2h
Fressingfield - 2h
Fressingfield - 2h

Claydon - 7e

Claydon - 7e
Claydon - 7e
Claydon - 7e
Claydon - 7e

Botesdale - 1h

Botesdale - 1h
Botesdale - 1h
Botesdale - 1h
Botesdale - 1h

Botesdale - 1e - Now withdrawn)
Gt Blakenham - 2ob

Gt Blakenham - 2ob
Gt Blakenham - 2ob
Gt Blakenham - 2ob
Gt Blakenham - 2ob

Gt Blakenham - L - 3ob

Gt Blakenham - L - 3ob
Gt Blakenham - L - 3ob
Gt Blakenham - L - 3ob
Gt Blakenham - L - 3ob

Gt Blakenham - NB - 6lr

Gt Blakenham - NB - 6lr
Gt Blakenham - NB - 6lr
Gt Blakenham - NB - 6lr
Gt Blakenham - NB - 6lr

Stowmarket - 14e & NB - 33e

Stowmarket - 14e & NB - 33e
Stowmarket - 14e & NB - 33e
Stowmarket - 14e & NB - 33e
Stowmarket - 14e & NB - 33e

Claydon - 1h & 1lr

Claydon - 1h & 1lr
Claydon - 1h & 1lr
Claydon - 1h & 1lr
Claydon - 1h & 1lr

Thurston - LLB - 9h

Thurston - LLB - 9h
Thurston - LLB - 9h
Thurston - LLB - 9h
Thurston - LLB - 9h

Stowmarket - L - 18h

Stowmarket - L - 18h
Stowmarket - L - 18h
Stowmarket - L - 18h
Stowmarket - L - 18h

Stowmarket - LLB - 2h

Stowmarket - LLB - 2h
Stowmarket - LLB - 2h
Stowmarket - LLB - 2h
Stowmarket - LLB - 2h

Stowmarket - NB - 27h
Stowmarket - NB - 27h
Stowmarket - NB - 27h
Stowmarket - NB - 27h
Stowmarket - NB - 27h

Needham Market - 7h & 7e

Needham Market - 7h & 7e
Needham Market - 7h & 7e
Needham Market - 7h & 7e
Needham Market - 7h & 7e

Stowmarket - 2h - GF    Reject

Stowmarket - 2h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 2h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 2h - GF    Reject
Stowmarket - 2h - GF    Reject

Needham Market - 6h

Needham Market - 6h
Needham Market - 6h
Needham Market - 6h
Needham Market - 6h

Bramford - X6ob

Bramford - X6ob
Bramford - X6ob
Bramford - X6ob
Bramford - X6ob

Badwell Ash/ Long Thurlow - 2h (Map 4b)

Badwell Ash/ Long Thurlow - 2h (Map 4b)
Badwell Ash/ Long Thurlow - 2h (Map 4b)
Badwell Ash/ Long Thurlow - 2h (Map 4b)
Badwell Ash/ Long Thurlow - 2h (Map 4b)

Stonham Aspal - 2h

Stonham Aspal - 2h
Stonham Aspal - 2h
Stonham Aspal - 2h
Stonham Aspal - 2h
Great Bricett - NB - 2h

Great Bricett - NB - 2h
Great Bricett - NB - 2h
Great Bricett - NB - 2h
Great Bricett - NB - 2h

Gt Blakenham - NB - 8e

Gt Blakenham - NB - 8e
Gt Blakenham - NB - 8e
Gt Blakenham - NB - 8e
Gt Blakenham - NB - 8e

Mendlesham - NB - 17h

Mendlesham - NB - 17h
Mendlesham - NB - 17h
Mendlesham - NB - 17h
Mendlesham - NB - 17h

Langton Green, Eye - 4h

Langton Green, Eye - 4h
Langton Green, Eye - 4h
Langton Green, Eye - 4h
Langton Green, Eye - 4h

Bacton - NB - 17h & NB - 17e

Bacton - NB - 17h & NB - 17e
Bacton - NB - 17h & NB - 17e
Bacton - NB - 17h & NB - 17e
Bacton - NB - 17h & NB - 17e

Debenham - 3h

Debenham - 3h

Debenham - 3h
Debenham - 3h
Debenham - 3h

Claydon - 12e

Claydon - 12e

Claydon - 12e
Claydon - 12e
Claydon - 12e

Bacton - NB - 16h

Bacton - NB - 16h

Bacton - NB - 16h
Bacton - NB - 16h
Bacton - NB - 16h

Stowmarket - 9h




Stowmarket - 9h




Stowmarket - 9h
Stowmarket - 9h




Stowmarket - 27h




Stowmarket - 27h




Stowmarket - 27h
Stowmarket - 27h




Needham Market - 3h



Needham Market - 4h



Needham Market - 2h



Needham Market - 6h



Stowmarket - NB - 28h




Creeting St Mary - 5h




Henley - 3h
Finningham - NB - 5h




Creeting St Peter - NB - 3h




Barham - 2h




Ashbocking - NB - 4h




Claydon - 2h/2LR




Stowmarket 1h/1e
Pettaugh - 2h




Pettaugh - 3h




Felsham 1h




Thurston -8h/8ob




Elmswell - 11ob


Thurston - 8h & 11h
1h/2h

Thurston - 1h
                                          Representation

Stradbroke - Scruffy farm buildings with good access to the Diss Road. Would link up unit
Westhall/ Grove End and the green area there and offer affordable housing
Take strip off the meadow to allow the garage site to provide sufficient parking. Otherwise leave
Might be possible to negotiate a rear entrance to the school as part of the deal. This would be a
considerable gain. However - next to mill, so not a good site for housing. People comment on
This would be an easy way to offer just a few new houses without upsetting anybody (I think!).
Entry through Meadow Way.
Quite unsuitable narrow site ribbon development.
Should be first with 3 bed family homes - low cost.
Too large for primary village - would need careful phasing.
Ideal for 3 bed low cost family homes - two phases - difficult to sewer.
Again not designated for building and should never be!
Creeting St Mary is not designated to be built on. The Council has already agreed at previous
meetings that this is Creeting St Mary and not Needham Market and the mistake was made note
of. So this Plot should not even be discussed!!! Also this land floods considerably and it is
unbelievable it should even be thought of as building land. NB- NOT PART OF NEEDHAM
Creeting St Mary - I do not accept the need for large scale housing in a rual village like Creeting
St Mary - I am pleased to see it is classified as a CS2 village and trust will remain. I do not want
to see large scale destruction of our rural villages.
 Needham Mkt but refer to CSM. Land on Needham map - in Creeting St Mary - mistake was
made in 2002 and commented on by CSM Parish Council - this land floods regularly and should
not be built upon. It is important too that the boundary - correct for our village is reinstated
properly otherwise it is a creeping development which could pave the way for other land owners
This area is close to Medical Centre and Secondary Shopping Area
Possible area for development in long term once access is shown from either Hill Farm Road or
Anderson Close. (Remote from other facilities) Needham needs better infrostructure re link roads
This is a chalk quarry close to other business premises good Road link.
Please re-submit. Initial proposal of 12 Ha to provide potential for both affordable housing
together with mix of housing. As site adjoins primary school, provision could be made for
enlargement and improved facilities . The school is active and highly regarded, as is the village
hall and its continually improving facilities. Additionally, the village is accessible to both the A140
and Needham Market itself. thereby avoiding conjested roads. Importantly - this is land above
flood plain areas and benefits from not having been 'disturbed' as for example, the chalk-pit site
The lease appropriate - no access congestion in the centre of village, conservation area.
The most appropriate - would provide alternative access to the primary school thus reducing
significantly the risk of an accident in Queen Street.
Least Appropriate - No benefits to Village - Open land would be destroyed.
Least Appropriate - Removing open space from centre of Village. Development would increase
congestion to already crowded area.
Most appropriate as Village will obtain a new access road to development site, which in turn
would provide, access to Primary School - which would relieve present traffic conjestion at front
of school in Queen Street. (Prevention of Accidents and improvement to traffic flow would
Most appropriate as Village will obtain further land for the recreation playing field.
Difficult access and poor drainage
Good simple extension of farming
Ok but loss of working farm
Should provide expansion for school
Should be kept for leisure /recreation
The sites noted are all bracketed under "Least Approriate" as follows The Greenfield "cushion"
between residential property and The Mid Suffolk Business Park is only just sufficient as HGV
noise and industrial aromas are noticeable dependent on the wind direction. A coalescence
between residential and commercial areas are in appropriate. Further traffic generation along
Victoria Hill and Lambseth St into the town, caused by fresh development commercial or
otherwise, would cause danger and congestion on a road that suffers already from lack of traffic
speed limit/ lorrysize enforcement by Police. Lastly at a time of sharply rising commodity prices,
such as grain, all should be done to encourage already encumbrant farmers to remain on their
land to help alleviate this problem. After all there is no point building houses for the population if
Has flood plans on it. Mill St already floods along that part of the road. Also I have concerns
living next door to this site to potential damage to our house. There has also been 7 houses built
This is in middle of the countryside it has a footpath running down the middle of the 4 fields .
Also there is no direct traffic access except down the side of Poplar/Rowan Cottage. Mr Keith
has also built 2 large stable blocks on this site which he has just completed.
To large area. Extends Village to far and floon plan area.
Interfers with the farmland and countryside too much. Access difficulties. Plots too big. In the
past 5 years there have been over 50 houses built in the village 30 in Mill St. This has caused
mere problems with flooding that we already have. The damage to the road and wildlife due to
heavy plant machinery and traffic. Noise due to the building , plus awaiting list at a new school.
Bid is too large lies in the flood plan and will drastically change the view of the countryside.
Access to sites must be ungraded and saftey
Measures fully implemented as the High School
With over 1000 pupils is on Church Lane.
This site is below road level and unsuitable for any building, as it is liable to flood
Land south-east of sb off Half Moon Lane. This matter was raised at the time of the Redgrave
Village Plan and the proposal by the Parish Council to recommend it for affordable housing
received more objections than any other proposal. We were given to understand that in view of
the number of objections the play area would continue to be available to the village children. The
land was sold to the village by Mr. Holt-Wilson so that it could be used as a childrens play area
for a nominal £50. There are other plots which could be used for affordable houses within the
We understand that as Redgrave is designated a secondary village any development beyond its
present boundaries will not be considered. The infrastructure is not suitable.
I wish to reinforce my view (previously given by letter) that the play area off Half Moon Lane
should be retained as a play area. I do not agree with the Parish Council's request to move the
Settlement Boundary to include this site, with a view to building affordable housing. The results
of the Village Plan show that villagers do not support this action. The play area is safe and well-
used. Further building in Half Moon Lane would compromise access and safety for everyone in
I understand that as a Secondary Village, this application will be refused. The apparent size of
the proposed site would be totally inappropriate for a small village.
Claydon - Claydon Church Lane cannot cope with any additional traffic volumes and so NO
development should be allowed there of any sort, housing, industrial, etc.
Unsuitable for housing due to access.
Unsuitable for housing due to access.
Unsuitable for football pitch due to access.
Barham - Ok - fill in gap of unused land.
Claydon - Not appropriate - Too much traffice for Rede Lane.
Claydon - Inappropriate - overlooking Hazel Rise.
Gt Blakenham - Appropriate - good road connnections.
Gt Blakenham - Appropriate - good use of land.
Agricultural land leave as is footpath across middle used heavily, houses not required.
Football pitch NOT required (Use existing).
Should be developed if road upgraded for extra traffic.
Great Blakenham is very suitable if the roads in the area are improved. Why can't this site be
used as the entrance for Snoasis as well? This would then lessen the traffic on the B1113. The
high skills job would also be welcomed to the area. There should not be an incinerator built in
This development should not go ahead. The road here is already a blackspot and dangerous,
putting in another development opposite an already dangerous junction is asking for trouble.
This is an area frequently used for walking and would be a detriment to landscape (SLA) also
next to sewage works.
This is a considerable flooding risk by Low Road. In general there should be very little new
housing allocated to Debenham. There is a need for limited affordable houses.
To have a playing field on the other side of a busy road is nonsense. Why not allocate land
south of the existing playing field. It would spoil a beautiful view from the road and school.
This land is next to 2 community woodlands, has poor access and would be a loss of landscape.
This is away from the centre of the village.
In general there should be very little new housing allocated to Debenham. There is a need for
limited affordable houses. The constraints on Debenham in general are:- poor transport links
(no train, very poor public transport to Stowmarket, reasonable to Ipswich), small and
overcrowded access roads, flooding in many areas, oversubscribed schools, landscape of
special importance, not many shops, little employment in vicinity. In other words, NO!
It would be lovely to see this piece of land used for leisure eg football pitches that are floodlit in
winter or/and rugby pitches - as there is talk of moving chiltern fields. If it has be built on then
Old by pass nursery off bramford road
Fitzgerald Rd (inappropriate use of Farm & visual amenity. Fison's site (Too Dense).
This is against Parish Plan which shows most people in village want infill development - it is
outside settlement boundary - against Parish Plan once again - and raises access issues on a
This is outside of s.bounday which is against parish plan and causes traffic access problems on
a very busy access/exit rd from village - Greenfield Site etc. with Snoasis & Paper Mill already in
pipeline our target for housing needs may be already met.
This is totally unnecessary development - no local need for further sports fields - outside
boundary - against Local Parish Plan Criteria For Development - There are 2 sites for football
This is open farm land outside of the current village development boundary and should not be
used for future expansion as there is already plenty of other areas suitable for this purpose. The
village certainly does not require any more playing fields as those existing are under utilised.
Any future playing fields should be adjacent to the existing. Are these areas for housing
designated for the better means of the community or for developers profit? It certainly appears
This land is a brown field site and most appropriate for future expansion for the village.
The previous applications to build on this land were refused.
This land is not adjacent to New Street and Queens Road but located behind domestic
properties on Queens Street and Church Street.
At this moment a planning application is in for this land Stowmarket Multi Moval Distribution Park.
This is completely out of context with the area & Stowmarket. A new Leisure Centre & football
pitches etc. would be far more beneficial to the people of Stowmarket and local villagers.
This is an ideal piece of land for open space for the residents of Cedars Park. This could be
nicely landscaped and sitting areas for people to meet.
We are aware of protected species - Badgers & Doormice on and adjacent to this area.
I have no objections to the church trust building on the car park of Stowmarket F.C. providing the
club can get a long lease, in order for the club to apply for funding of a new club house etc.
Please allow housing to be built on the site to allow for Stowmarket F.C. to continue at its present
site with improved facilites (I.e. new clubhouse building).
Church Road is subject to frequent flooding due to blockage of water outflow on the proposed
site. There is no pavement on this road which has 2 sharp bends restricting visibility from
School/Dr. Surgery etc already overstretched - over development would be detrimental to the
villages resources and general feel and ambience.
These sites are on flood plain or adjacent - seems high risk for building - v unhappy about this.
These developments - especially 1h, 2h and 4h pose a substantial flood risk in terms of surface
water overwhelming the current drainage system and flooding the properties around Water Lane
and Bury Road - this area flooded in 1968 - 1 metre deep - with 2 -3 close shaves in the last 20
years - surface run off water would compromise the current system. Please inform the flood risk
Mill Road is too small to deal with building. These are 2 massive sites in an already busy part of
the village. Access from emergency services may be reduced due to exta traffic (ambulances
What a shame to build on a village playing field , this is what village life should be about - tennis,
This is the only land the school could build on to expand ie school pitches etc.
Both these sites are on high ground, this will increase the risk of flooding on the flood zone
Exit routes from these sites would be on to unsuitable roads - Gipping Road and Church Road.
Volume of traffic already using Church Road, heading towards Stowmarket would be increased
not only from this development, but also added housing at Mendlehsam. When the new relief
road over the railway line is open, vehicles currently using the Cedars Link to get into
Stowmarket will be using the route via the Cedars Park Estate. At certain times during the day it
is impossible to get out of Maple Road, Felix Road or Thorney Green Road. Facilites in
No further development of this parcel of land should be allowed because it is too near domestic
housing and already causes problems with early morning noise.
The land adjacent to Mill Green Farmhouse has been set aside for at least the past seven years.
It is for aghricultural use and should be used for that purpose only. To allow the land to be used
for housing development should be refused . Access to and from Mill Street is restricted and in
part is a single track road. The land should be properlly cultivated and used to grow much
needed local produce and not continuously "set aside"! Would like the land to return to Mill
Having purchased a property a few weeks ago backing onto 5h we were under the impression
that no development would be allowed behind our bungalow. We understand this was the
Needham/Barking boundary and a brown field no-development site.
The road (Church Road) cannot support more traffic entering and exiting at this point. It is too
narrow and unsighted. Stowupland needs to be kept separate from Stowmarket.
This field is the only 'open' meadow in the village its loss to housing would be bad.
Again this land provides amenity, rural, walling area - not to be lost.
Where will access be for people to come away from Mill St. The current exit on to the main
B1115 is very near to the main T junction of the B1120. Also again where will the the extra
safety systems be placed ie Firestation, G.P's and Constabulary. Overall why spoil something
thats working perfectly well just for extra money in someones pocket
Site to large for area considering knock on implications ie electrics, gas, sewage etc. also
increased traffic on roads too small to cope. Will you be building more facilitesie Doctors
This site/sites are far too big for a village situation. Given the massive development already
underway In Cedars Park. I do not believe this development is needed. Particularly
development here would spoil the rural character of this part of the village which is enjoyed both
by local residents and many walkers. Views across fields to the church would be lost. The roads
could not cope with a hugh development of this kind and several properties have very little
This site would be suitable for perhaps three or four dwellings - no more - but having obtained
permission for a small number I feel that this would escalate into the whole field.
This piece of land is in a dangerous position for coming out onto a corner - where so much traffic
is travelling - especially with the petrol station and traffic from Cedars Park.
This development would be out of the area set out for housing etc - and how on earth would Mill
St. cope with the extra traffic - at the moment there is only room for a car. If you meet one
coming in the opposite direction you have to pull into someone's driveway.
I feel this site is far too large for this village - the way houses are crammed in - the number of
houses would be horrendous and would double the number of properties in the village. The
main road through the village (Church Road) would be dangerous for traffic to enter and leave
the site. If the Gipping Road is used this is far to narrow to cope with extra vehicles. At the
A totally inappropriate development for this area, adding to an already congested A14.
Much too large, local amenities not able to support a development of this size. Too much traffic
in a village already saturated.
Not suitable for more transport too narrow. Facilities are not suitable for any further building.
Again unsuitable for access.
Totally inadequate - roads too narrow and busy
This would appear to be the most suitable area for development as it does not raise the
concerns as stated above.
This would also appear to be a more suitable area for development.
This would appear to be the most unsuitable area allocated for future development. The size
and location of the site would result in an enormous increase on the number of vehicles using
both the main road through the village and more minor residential roads. The increase in
housing and consequently residents would not be adequately matched by the facilities in the
The reasons for this site being turned down for development previously are still valid. Increase
of traffic on road, which already has speed problems, access directly on to Church Rd. can only
increase the problem. The extensive views to Creetings are one of the few that can be and are
enjoyed by many villagers as they use the facilities in the village situated in Church Rd. This is
just a "foot in the door" for future development on a large scale.
Any development here should be very small 10 or less and very carefully planned in view of
proximity to corner, where there has already been one fatality in recent years.
Junction is already so busy at peak times - added traffic will add to this. The A1120 is not
capable of coping with extra traffic these developments would bring. Please let us keep our
village as a village! ! What haoppened to road calming measures for A1120 through village?
Crossing the road to get to the garage takes a great deal of courage and dexerity.
Mill St. bottom - traffic issue again. Roads not suitable for extra traffic . No pedestrian footways
at present so what do pedestians do ?? (fly?)
Past school - traffic would be definite issue here - roads not adequate to cope
In particular they are split between the town centre and the employment area both in walking
distance. Residents on the frontage development regularly walk into Eye town centre. The
existing road is built to adoptable standard and now that the forward visibility splay has been
secured the road can be put forward for adoption. A foul water sewer for adoption was laid for
the frontage plots and is available for future development. This area of land was previously a pig
farm and is not currenly utilised. This area of land is by far the most favourable area for future
Both these sites have no negative constraints.
Could cause dangerous road conditions as it's to close to junction and as this area has just been
altered to make road conditions safer.
This site is given as allotments it should be classified as a parish pond as this is what it always
was known and could cause traffic issues.
This area should be developed as it is a brown field site with the provision that traffic exits via
Claydon end of Paper Mill Lane. Suggest Paper Mill Lane be blocked off at Scotts site making it
a dead end with turning circle , as this road is not wide enough to take such a large volume of
This area should be kept as arable and leisure area as the A1113 has more than enough traffic
on it at the moment.
Consideration for a football pitch on the proposed site between Fitzgerald Roand and Lorraine
Way!!! Is it a joke or a complete farce no one in their right mind would place children, motorists,
cyclists and pedestrians in danger of footballs next to two main roads. Recovery of the balls and
not to mention extra parking problems it would cause. I get a feeling this is a underhand way to
have more housing in this area. We do have a football pitch the children can use and I do not
We consider this to be an inappropriate site for development. This is a charming valley on the
outskirts of the town and is an amenity enjoyed by all the community. Traffic access to this area
is already difficult , Poplar Hill is a narrow road which carries far too much heavy traffic , with the
added hazards of on-road parking and speed bumps. Further building here would exacerbate
the situation for local residents, and the inhabitants of Combs. Local schools and local doctors
Landbid outside settlement area and past applications have been returned. This is the 5th most
dangerous road - therefore no more traffic is needed. Entrance would be in situ of the brideway
also. Our 400 year old cottage in Marsh Lane is next to a huge monster of a house recently built
- how it was passed I shall never know. It was Mr Ling he had it built! Apparently built for his
workers but it is let out privately - so we are forever having new neighbours who do not contribute
Concern with flooding to Water Lane and surrounding properties for all these bids.
There is a history of flooding in this area, including Bury Road. The church was flooded in 1968!.
Please let Stowmarket Town Football Club build a new brick clubhouse that will enable the club
to reach it's full potential. Once this has been done then allow building to be placed on the
existing car park. But only after the new brick clubhouse has been built!!
Allow building on this site to the football club can have a new building on the site.
Re-development of existing buildings is OK , but visibility at entrance into Mill Street needs to be
considered and enlarged with lower hedges.
It is dangeroud enough for property owners on Church Road because few drivers adhere to the
30 limit. Can't the field stay as a field? Surely enough fields have already been developed on
A development with access onto the corner of the main road would be extremely dangerous -
although is is a 30mph limit, vehicles come up the main straight doing 60mph and do not slow
down until well into the corner. The local schools will struggle to accomodate further children.
A further 20 properties in Mill Street would instantly double the amount of properties. The small
one track road could not accommodate extra traffic. Can it not stay as a field?
 I do not believe that Stowupland could cope with this size of development and cannot
accommodate any further development once Reeds Way has been developed. The schools
would have to expand further and the whole village resources would be stretched, changing it
I am concerned about the danger of gaining access to or egress from the site onto the busy
Gipping Road - Church Road &
Millgreen Farm - Mill Street. The least appropriate sites are 7h - 4h & 6h, they show no accesses
to the B roads, and more traffic in these already busy roads would be a big harard. These is no
inforstructure in the village to accommodate all these new houses. Nothing has been proposed
about:- Doctors, Schools, Shops- etc. It's bad enough now trying to get a Dr's appointment with
your own Dr. The Tesco's and the Asda's of this town must be rubbing their hands together, as
must the people who want to sell the land. There are 3 people in this household who say's NO,
Close to amenities.
Will also rid the village of lorries as well as provide the necessary homes.
We would like to declare our interest in the use of brown field sites should be considered a
priority. We are also fully aware of the duty of councils to plan ahead in terms of housing needs
of the future and it is refreshing to see such a pro-active approach being advocated by Mid
To Dangerous coming into new Mill Street unless there is a roundabout installed.
To dangerous coming into Mill Street.
Taking too much green land.
Would not like to see development surrounding the historic church of Mendlesham so close to
conservation area boundary. Plus aesthetic view of village on hill approach spoilt.
Seem more ideal sites for village expansion - more 'sensible' logical sites. Access roads would
allow traffic to be taken away from Front Street and main village heart. "Gap filling" in land and
village housing on these sites doesn't seem to make whole village footprint much bigger
More local affordable sympathetic housing needed in village with provisos that village benefits
reciprocally - ie school is expanded and funded accordingly.
Flood risk. This site slopes steeply to a small watercourse that takes drainage water from fields
and the overflow for the rainwater reservoir fed by the A143 bypass drainage. This small
waterway can often be dry in summer but should we get 3 days of heavy rain it can cause it to
overflow into Water Lane. As this post code, IP22 1EL , is already designated a flood plain the
residents have already been refused insurance by 3 major companies. It is not surprising that
the residents are very concerned that this site is being put forward for housing development.
This situation applies to paragraph 4.22 sentence 8 in particular, which states any new
This land all slopes down towards Water Lane (see attached o/s map) acting as a sponge
absorbing water destined for Water Lane and surrounding areas during heavy rainfall. Currently
after three days rainfall Water Lane will flood to a depth of two feet prior to water flowing into The
Street via Bury Road. This has occurred on approx. four occasions in the last 9 years. To build
on any of the subject land bids would obviously increase the flooding in an already designated
flood area (certainly zone 3b) and would be contary to Government Guidelines. NB. Major
The land put forward for housing development is ancient pasture land and this type of meadow
land should be preserved. At present it is used for equine purposes with stabling which supports
countryside pursuits and makes for peaceful rural vistas. There are more suitable proposals/land
bids put forward which more than covers the village needs and housing quota for the foreseeable
We are concerned about future residential development in the central core of the village,
particularly those sites bordering the Conservation Area. Any development requiring access into
Church Street and Queens Street should be strongly resisted because of the congestion problem
that already exists, as well as the movement of heavy traffic from agricultural vehicles and the
trucking company situated on the Wilby Road. The sites on the outskirts of the village represent
a more acceptable option since clearly some development will be allowed. Lack of public
transport, with more reliance on the motor car should be taken into consideration when deciding
the number of sites to be developed. There are very few employment opportunities in
Stradbroke hence commuting will increase, without the infrastructure to sustain it. Clearly
The overall development proposed for the village is too large to maintain the villages' appeal and
character. The least appropriate sites for development are 3h, behind the garage and NB - 6h
in Mill Street. NB - 6h in Mill Street has limited access to sustain the proposed numbers, the
road is single track with no obvious or feasible way of widening. Egress from Mill Street onto
Stowmarket Road is at best limited, but during peak times difficult due to the already increased
volume of traffic using the road, so add 20 to 30 more vehicles trying to get out would add to the
problems.Again access is the problem with site 3h as it would come onto the A1120 , Yoxford
Road, on or just past a badly sighted bend with an already busy junction which is likely to
become even busier with completion of the relief road from Stowmarket. The most appropriate
sites for limited development are NB - 7h and 4h, although it should be restricted to 50 houses
and the building of a new primary school to cater for increased numbers when two tier system is
implemented. Any development must be carried out with proper infrastructure and amentities
Most suitable use for NB - 6h would be agricultural, or limited to 5 houses at most. As to the
proposed developments for the Stowmarket Area the multi-modal centre should not go ahead
due to already put forward grounds. Again these developments must have the infrastructure in
place first and amenities given prescedent, especially schooling and medical capabilities but also
improved emergency services support especially fire and police.
1. Please clarify how this was purchased. (Most prople do not seem aware of workshop 1/10/07)
2. Please preference meeting 3/12/07 better. Can this re letter to all homes in Barham? Please
reply in writing 7 days. We reply to requests in letter dated 22/10/07.
Please note this is agricultural land and this should not be included for developments as
discussed with Sylvia Grobler. Please provide details of why this was included in the Land Bid.
Please provide in 7 days a copy of all papers submitted for the Land Bids.
Please provide further information including copies of all submissions regarding Land Bids.
Please reply in writing in 7 days. We reply to requests in letter dated 22/10/07.
The proposed freight terminal and the increased use of GPS (which uses the A1120 as a short
circuit to the A140) will significantly increase HGV vehicles through Stowupland. The proposals
do not refer to or consider the massive upgrade of the present infrastructure that would be
Church Road /A1120 is barely capable of handling the current traffic generated in and through
Stowupland. The corner by the garage is a notorious bottle neck at certain times and this will
only be compound by increased development.The proposed sites are also outside the village
Having lived in Water Lane for some 40 years I know that this area acts as a soakaway for rain
and covering it with houses will be distasterous for Water Lane which floods most winters.
Same comment applies. These fields used to surround a lake which drains into Water Lane
Again a flood plain not suitable for housing.
I have serious concerns about future development on thse sites. The majority of the surface
water from the main part of Botesdale village, currently "runs off" through Fen Lane - the
drainage/culvert currently borders my property, and others in the lane. Any development on the
proposed sites could have a detrimental impact on the existing facilities to cope with any
I fully support the proposal to include this area within the SLA, the conservation area or a V10s. I
live adjacent to this area and it seems an anomoly that is is currently not incorporated within one
of these specified sites, which borders it it on all sides. It's location is an integral part of the
street scene enviroment as it changes from the main village, heading to open countryside.
My concerns for this site is where the road will come out. I know people need houses but we
also need some area of fields, green, trees etc.
Traffic problems as above there has already been some near misses with vehicles coming from
Mill Street is not suitable for the extra traffic the site could cause. Also there is sewer problems
This is a secluded site that lends itself to being brought into the settlement boundary for housing.
It would not create any visual alteration to Finningham Road. A children play area is next door.
The School is in easy walking distance. When the Elmside development is finished it will be in
Please allow housing to be built on this site so that the football club can continue to exist.
Allow housing to be built on the front of the present Club House and allow a Club House to be
built on the side. The football pitch to be given to the Football Club.
I would like to build on 17h , but access must be aloud for Football Club. With permission for
This piece of land was left to the people of Stowmarket for 100 years (1983 - 2083) so no
building should be done - as Stowmarket football has been on this site for a number of years
and benefits people it should be allowed to develop, as recreational facilities are badly needed to
The least appropriate sites for housing because they have flooded within the last 6 or 7 years
and are very near flood plain. The flood risk would be very much greater as a result.
No thought has been given to these proposed development areas.
There should only be very small areas of single house/bungalow dwellings in and around
Stowupland. Church Road is almost at stationary status at 08.00hrs in the morning. You
planners and developers should try this and see what the locals have to deal with. To add more
houses with the already overdeveloped Cedars Park is just not practical or acceptable. Please
also think of the enviroment as well more concrete on the ground, will add to further flood
problems. We also do not need the proposed Industrial Site near Tescos, just off the a14 at
Stowmarket. We do not need constant noise, lights. lorries driving around, more pollution to our
Concerned about the suitability of this site bearing in mind Mill Street being a very narrow road -
also concerned about the impact of housing so close to the orchards and the effect that the
development may have on the farmer of the orchard.
Feel that this area would not enhance the village - over development. Road infrastructure unable
too support a development of this size.
Unless significant road improvements ie roundabout - this development should not do ahead.
Unsuitable site close to A14 and at end of track.
Development of this site would swamp the existing village and destroy its character. It would be
a purely speculative development.
Mill St. we cant have anymore traffic coming out of Mill St. on to the road coming out of Mill St. on
to Stowmarket Road and on to A1120.
This land should not be built as there is no where for a road to come out either in Gipping Road
or Church Road. There is a number of large electric wires over it and a gas pipe running
through. Gipping Road is FAR to narrow and Church Road too busy with lorries and cars for any
This would bring houses right into Stowupland. Already Tesco estate is too big.
Road is not big enough to hold the amount of traffic it would generate.
Church Road would unable to cope with volume of traffic particularly at school time. Currently
problems with traffic coming from Cedars Park development through Stowupland.
This is the best site for development. All areas and amenities in the village can be accessed
from this site by bike or walking without using any major road. Developing area in outlining
villages is not ok because traffic accessing or leaving these villages will still pass along the
A1120. Children being driven to school create lots of peak time traffic so please build the
houses near the schools and village facilities . I would want to see a percentage of low cost
housing for local people. Please build the houses near the A14 instead of in outlining villages to
Against this site (Noise and light pollution)
Could build these sites.
Shouldn't be developed.
Totally unacceptable site.
Not happy with size of proposed development. - to large for size of village - increase in traffic -
roads already dangerous/ no footpath - another step to making Stowupland a suburb of
Unsuitable due to traffic and loss of open countryside. This is already a busy road with two
schools on it. Most housing is likely to have more that 1 car and all the extra traffic driving on to
an already busy road. Already extra traffic joining this road from estates around village - Old
Stowupland Road and new estate where Cedars School is all comes out on to this road - the
Due to the volume of traffic now using the A1120 additional discharge of traffic would increase
the danger of accidents.
Not desirable - traffic concerns.
Not desirable - traffic concerns.
Development here would spoil a lovely part of our village, a place which is lovely for taking a nice
quiet walk, and is full of wild life.
Mill Street too narrow for access. Too close to Stowmarket conurbation.
Church Rd. already has too much traffic. Gipping Road is not big enough for access.
The roads cannot sustain a container park. A need to find a Brown Field site like there is at
Sproughton. This site is not the answer.
As above but Max 20 homes.
Massive development will come severe congestion into Stowmarket from Stowupland.
Any additional development will need greatly improved access.
For carefully designed larger homes - well spaced out - Max 30.
Garage - no access onto very busy road.
Mill Street - Ok.
Not required - Gipping Road already to busy.
This is not the right place for such a development. The roads are already conjested with existing
traffic - particularly from all the new housing being built on the nearby Cedars development. The
noise and extra traffic would gradually creep up into the village, creating, more conjestion and
This is also extending the village too much.
This seems to be an area of countryside surely Stowupland Village cannot be extended to this
very large proposed area. Gipping Road and Thorney Green Road cannot take all the extra
traffic such a large development would create.
Oil pipeline (Airfield). Power line (To Thetford). Sewage inadequate. Utility needs for
development needs more thought . (Roads, Sewage, Electricity)
With the amount traffic already used in this area , by passing traffic etc to and from Mendlesham
etc. the amount of increase of any transport would be far to excessive. This area seems to be
larger than original heights. Agree with smaller infill sites keep with in the parish boundary.
Will cause too much noise and the roads are not suitable for more heavy traffic.
Will cause even more congestion on the road into Stowmarket - even longer queues at the level
Too much traffic on Mill Street which will exit too near the main road junction.
Traffic from these vast sites will cause even more problems on the main road through the village.
The village does not have enough local retail shops to service large development.
Stowupland is already developed enough. The traffic is already far too intense. The A1120 is a
very dangerous road and increased traffic would be much to dangerous to pedestrians and
motorists alike. Stowupland is a village and should stay that way.
Again the roads are not adequate.
Container Park. A completely disasterous proposal that will ruin the quality of life for people in the
surrounding locality.
Site areas too large as a whole and will have adverse effect on nature of parish making it more
Leave some green space between Stowmarket and Stowupland.
Container depot will increase noise, pollution and traffic.
Far too much traffic for further development in this area - Roundabout required!!
Do not develop outside boundary of village.
Single dwellings would be acceptable
Prefer less development of village but this would seem a good option if there must be some of
small groups of housing.
These areas should not be developed as these are lovely areas within easy reach of the whole
village for walking dogs/children.
Single dwelling would be ok.
Would prefer no developments but this would be the best site for 10 houses or less.
Against major for development on open countryside not acceptable . Against any big
development. Stowupland shouldn't join Stowmarket but remain as a village.
The A1120 is already used as a short cut between the A14 and A140, with Gipping Road (a
narrow country lane with existing properties to either side) and Rendalls Lane (a single track
road) providing a "speedy" alternative short cut. No reduced speed limit is in place here and
vehicles frequently greatly exceed the national speed limit. If this development were to proceed
problems that already exist would be exacerbated with vehicles access to the area a logistical
disaster. Services in Stowupland are sparse and those currenltly used by Stowupland residents
are already stretched to capacity, for example schools, healthcare providers etc. Extensive
further development would over burden the services that are in place. Any essential housing
Mid Suffolk's core strategy acknowledges that previously developed land (brown field sites) will
be given priority for development . A strategy that is in keeping with current national
development strategy. The land bit for future development is not in keeping with either local or
national strategies as it relates to green field sites outside the current settlement bounday for
Stowupland. These proposals would extend the village settlement bounday with the loss of
green field sites to extensive housing development, thus setting a dangerous precident for future
development to continue to erode green field sites and the accompanying loss of natural habitat
As far as I can see the land bid for future development is outside the current settlement boundary
for Stowupland is a 'greenfield' site. The most important issue here is that the proposed land bid
site would extend the settlement boundary of the village and would convert 'greenfield' land into a
housing estate. This sets a dangerous precident for any future development which has the
potential to exacerbate the loss of 'greenfield' natural habitat. It is imperative that the character
of Stowupland is not compromised in any way by future housing developments and therefore I
believe that the settlement boundaries for Stowupland should not be extended. Any
developments should only take place on 'brownfield' sites. The core strategy for Mid Suffolk
acknowledges that Previously Developed Land (PDL) will be given priority for development. The
vehicular access to the area, if developed, would be a logistical nightmare as both the A1120
leading to Saxham Street is already used as a short cut to the A140 (via Earl Stonham or
 Gipping Road leads into Rendall Lane to join the A1120 at the base of Saxham Street - this is in
effect a single track road that cannot take any additional traffic volume. In fact Gipping Road
currently does not have a reduced speed limit and is being used as an alternative route to the
A1120. Some vehicles, especially motorcycles, are certainly exceeding the national speed limit
and with small children in the area this is dangerous and is a receipe for disaster. Any
development will no doubt exacerbate the issue. Housing development should take place on the
A14 side of the village as this would restrict additional vehicle movements through the village
(which has won awards) and the character of the village would not be lost. Wildlife habitats
Site off A143 has a footpath crossing it and would make dangerous access and make village
look like a ribbon development. Wortham should be down graded from primary to secondary
village - it does not have facilities to support larger communities.
Site for land bid on Church Road is not suitable due to nature of single track road and no
Our village (Wortham) is now organising a design statement for any new housing proposed. We
are keen to keep standards up, venacular styles and good quality. Any land bids beyond
settlement boundary will change the nature of the village. The school full, we cannot take large
numbers of new pupils. Beware out of date information when deciding changes to settlement in
Land bid is outside settlement area and past applications have been refused. A143 is very
narrow and is now regarded as fifth most dangerous road, and any further development on this
road would cause serious traffic problems. The proposed is on the narrow part of this road. If
entrance is proposed on Beans Lane, this is a bridleway and nearly opposite Marsh Lane. This
For insurance purposes the area is all a flood plain which it isn't. Any further development
should take the size of the school and sewage system into account.
(Inset 65) Please make these details available on the web - map and info.
These seem the most suitable sites put forward, because of their close proximity to the majority
of the village amenities. Almost all the other sites are too far out for people to walk from them
into the village centre, so they would resort to driving in. Sites 1h and 1e also have a very good
link with the A143 via Mill Road which would prevent the need for extra traffic through the village
as people go to and from the new houses. I did expect a proposal from S.C.C.for the land they
own between the White Horse Public House and the wheatfields development.
(A) Needham Market (B) Old factory site in town centre/Chalk Field site. (C) Least
appropriate - Land adjoining Platten Close (D) Old Factory Site would be good for homes near
town centre and be best positioned for shops, and it was brownfield site. (D) Chalk pits was
brownfield site ane would make excellent site for housing near to town but not impacting visually
on the area i.e. like the development at Claydon which is most successful. (D) Development at
Platten Close would be to ruin a visually important area and would upset wildlife i.e. deer,
woodpecker, jackdaws, many types of finches and other small birds. People like to walk in
Platten Close, some with dogs, and enjoy the views in this area. I think is is important to
On your map of this site, the footpath has been incorrectly marked in. I have O.S. maps dating
back tio the early 60s hope this diagram helps.
Any developments on this field would destroy the landscape of Bramford village for future
generations. This is probably one of the villages most natural wonders for all to enjoy.
There should be no extension to settlement boundary. Should not be permitted outside
settlement boundary. Safety hazard to A1120.
Should not be permitted o/s boundary. A1120 safety concerns.
Should not be permitted o/s boundary. A1120 safety concerns. Unacceptable incresase in traffic
in Thorney Green Road/Gipping Road.
Many facilites required for such large developments do not exist in the village. Strain on
facilitiers that exist nearby - many of the new residents would use private transport to the
detriment of the general enviroment and the associated narrow roads. To provide the necessary
infrastructure improvements would be costly and cause further enviromental damage. Better to
locate large housing developments nearer towns/larger villages which have better facilities.
There are fears that Stowupland is becoming a part of Stowmarket. A clear gap between the
Do not extend settlement boundary. Some redevelopment on site without intensification would
Should not be permitted - Mill Street unsuitable for extra traffic. O/S settlement boundary. Blot
on beautiful landscape.
All sites which are too far outside a cohesive village envelope. Visual intrusion, affecting longer
views of the village where development would be significant detremental impact marked *
All sites where sensitive "infill development" might be acceptable, provide low density, green
development with areas of trees and enviromental planting could be acceptable.
Only area around existing houses.
Not shown fully on plan - small infill development acceptable.
All sites where sensitive "infill development" might be acceptable, provide low density, green
development with areas of trees and enviromental planting could be acceptable.
All sites where sensitive "infill development" might be acceptable, provide low density, green
development with areas of trees and enviromental planting could be acceptable.
All sites where sensitive "infill development" might be acceptable, provide low density, green
development with areas of trees and enviromental planting could be acceptable.
All sites where sensitive "infill development" might be acceptable, provide low density, green
development with areas of trees and enviromental planting could be acceptable.
All sites which are too far outside a cohesive village envelope. Visual intrusion, affecting longer
views of the village where development would be significant detremental impact marked *
All sites which are too far outside a cohesive village envelope. Visual intrusion, affecting longer
views of the village where development would be significant detremental impact marked *
All sites where sensitive "infill development" might be acceptable, provide low density, green
development with areas of trees and enviromental planting could be acceptable.
All sites which are too far outside a cohesive village envelope. Visual intrusion, affecting longer
views of the village where development would be significant detremental impact marked *
All sites which are too far outside a cohesive village envelope. Visual intrusion, affecting longer
views of the village where development would be significant detremental impact marked *
All sites which are too far outside a cohesive village envelope. Visual intrusion, affecting longer
views of the village where development would be significant detremental impact marked *
All sites which are too far outside a cohesive village envelope. Visual intrusion, affecting longer
views of the village where development would be significant detremental impact marked *
All sites where sensitive "infill development" might be acceptable, provide low density, green
development with areas of trees and enviromental planting could be acceptable.
Rejected. Too far outside the village.
Rejected. Breaks out into surrounding countryside. Poor access onto Priory Road.
Just the eastern half should be allocated for residential development, concern over access to
Lion Road due to traffic speeds.
17h too large scale for residential development. 4h acceptable for affordable housing on part of
site but not all. 4h plus part of 17h if necessary would be acceptable for a new school.
Rejected.
Rejected. Too close to railway, particularly for a new access.
Rejected. Site too large. Denmark Hill unsuitable for taking extra traffic.
Rejected. Millway Lane unsuitable for more traffic.
See 2h. Swan Nursery School has now re-located elsewhere.
Beyond the defined boundary of the village. Difficult access. Rejected.
Rejected. Access on a narrow road and sharp corner.
Rejected. Too large. Millway Lane too narrow for additional traffic, concern over traffic speed in
Lion Road. Ref - new access.
Rejected. Too far outside village.
Not shown on map. Clarification of location needed, but likely to be rejected as off Denmark Hill.
We are concerned that any development in these locations would have a detrimental effect in the
following areas. (1) Traffic flow: in Poplar Hill, Edgecombe Road, Vernuil Avenue and Combs
Road - we note particularly that parking at roadside causes obstructions now. (2) Surface Water
Drainage: - additional hard surfaces will cause additional run-off = possible flooding because the
ground is clay - soakaways will not work! (3) We are also concerned that foul sewer
infrastructure may not be able to cope, although this will be the responsibility of Anglian Water,
Mill St. is the least appropriate site as it is only single lane track, if you meet on coming traffic
you have to pull into a gateway as there is no room to pass. At certain times of the day it takes a
long time to exit Mill St. for all the traffic on the main road and will be even worse when all the
houses are built at the top of Preston Hill. Some time a go two people applied to run a small
business from home, it would have entailed about six vehicles extra a day, and was turned town
because Mill St. was not suitable for the extra traffic it would cause. I can not see how it could
This land is designated a Visually Important Open Space on LP.
This is 1 kilometre from Settllement Boundary previous Planning Applications have been refused.
This land is designated as a Visually Important Open Space on LP.
Rear of Sandy Lane, Barham.
This is part of a garden and should be available for infill. This part of the old green was put into
V.I.O.S. in 1998 without any prior notification to us and a further part of this green was filled in, in
a very inappropriate plot. In between two previously built bungalows, yet our garden is to be now
It will be nice if the Council take some notice of local people for a change.
This must be the least appropriate site where will the water go! It would make the village twice
its size! How would the A1120 cope with all the extra traffic.
This must be the least appropriate site where will the water go! It would make the village twice
its size! How would the A1120 cope with all the extra traffic.
All of this area is not suitable for housing or employment development and the only development
which should be allowed is small scale leisure and recreation development which fits in with a
rural area and makes use of the countryside for this with only a minimum requirement for any
Snoasis - Should this development not be allowed then the site should still be kept for leisure
and recreation only with the exception of a very small part which would be suitable for a small
All sites in Great Blakenham need looking at so that clear divisions between employment and
other developments are kept apart from residential areas and the current infrastructure problems
sorted out. In particular H.G.Vs who do not obey the weight restrictions . Also the high speed rat
runs between A14 and B1113, i.e. Station Road, Gipping Road and Chapel Lane. There needs
This land in my opinion is and always will be unsuitable for building as I am concerned as to
where all the run-off water will go as we were flooded this summer and its quite impossible for
the little ditch that takes off road drainage to take more. Also the fact that 2 years ago I thought I
was moving into a village not an extension of Stowmarket.
This land in my opinion is and always will be unsuitable for building as I am concerned as to
where all the run-off water will go as we were flooded this summer and its quite impossible for
the little ditch that takes off road drainage to take more.
Access - Noise - Light Pollution.
Access problems impossible.
Access problems impossible.
LEAST APPROPRIATE - Flooding risk if built on particularly since drainage ditch runs through
existing gardens. Also traffic congestion around Castleton Way area, already heavy due to
school, health clinic and access to business park, would increase. Rural town needs a "green
area" within area of residential building as an amenity and footpaths around this site are well
used by dog walkers, etc., yet is still viable as working farmland. Best of both worlds. Also
MOST APPROPRIATE - Would give access to town and amenities without concentrating too
much congestion around "hot spots" of town centre and Castleton Way amenities.
Not suitable - over in-filling - to retain a village atmosphere/character you need some little
pockets of undeveloped land within SB.
Not suitable - too large in relation to size of village and would spopil characteristic of village. It
would be on a Visually Import Open Space - valley seen from B1116.
Not suitable - too dense a block of housing for a village. This village will lose its character
becoming too big. More houses - more people - more cars and the roads in the village can't take
the vehicles. New Street is already chaotic and dangerous for pedestrians.
No comments given.

(A) Stoke Ash

(B) See Map attached

C) Villages without the items mentioned in paragraph 8 of your criteria list.
(D) 1. Criteria Para. 4 The settlement boundary of 1989 included this site.. However the 1998
settlement boundary cur through the site. A recent planning application and appeal was rejected
despite Parish Council and neighbour approval.
(D) 2. Criteria Para. 6 In 1989 it was declared garden land (brown land) how it 1998 is a mystery.

(D) 3. Criteria Para. 7 It is central to the village.
(D) 4. Criteria Para. 8 We have a village school within walking distance, we have a shop/post
office central to the village, we have a Village Hall. There is come employment in the village
school and local Inn. Public transport morning and evening is adequate for work in local towns .
Criteria 9 to 16 the answer is No. Except Para. 12 covered by (1) and (2) above. Stoke Ash
however is a secondary village with no land left within its current settlement boundary as
This site again would seem unnecessary expansion, the size and proposal for building in this
location would not seem necessary. The proximately of the site to the ancient woodland would
have a serious enviromental impact the I am know is of concern not only to the residents of
Development here would not only drastically impact on the views from one of the truly historical
buildings that Stowmarket has, giving much needed character. The Incline on the plot could
create serious problems with water run off towards the River and potential flooding. For
aesthetic and enviromental reasons it would seem not appropriate for development on this plot.
This is most alarming proposal of all the bids. Development on this entire proposed plot would
constitute almost another town!. This one bid alone would be able to accommodate the entire
target for housing development, and really should be considered in separate sections. The
lower end of the plot envelopes the Paupers graves where considerable work has gone into
preserving and retaining the historical site. The graves attract tourism and have had overseas
visitors (mainly Americans) tracing their ancestors, linked with Stow Lodge's history. It would
seem foolish to allow this historic site to be swamped with development. The impact of a major
development across the entire plot would be dramatic on the landscape and enviroment and truly
damage the rural nature of the area. I would obliterate any separate identity of Onehouse parish.
If development was restricted to the top end (approx 1/3) of the plot from the A14 up to the parish
boundary this would permit retaining the 'countryside' and satisfying development needs.
Coupled with the existing transport connections where would be less traffic generation.
Thank you for sight of the numerous Land Bids for development. In light of the vast number of
bids that far outstrip the actual need for housing, coupled with the apparent free-for- all to
develop greenbelt land. This would appear to be the ideal opportunity for Mid Suffolk Distric
Council to show some real discernment and rather than just bow to pressure from major
developers but to show that they actually listen and work with local communities, putting some
credence to the effort (and expenditure) that has been spent on products such as the Local
Development Plan. It would seem an opportunity to allow a spread between larger and smaller
Some parishes have gone to considerable effort to produce Parish Plans that have been
submitted to you reflecting the concerns and wishes of the local communities. Specifically I
refer to Onehouse Parish Plan and the strong desire that the village retains its identity. I
appreciate the need or development; however this should not be taken in isolation but linked to
regeneration to avoid an ever expanding town with no infrastructure/character or centre to
Considering the money that has been spent on the A14 improvements it would seem sensible to
utilize the access this creates. I should be possible to temper this to accommodate development
and retain the character of the Mid Suffolk countryside.
Unclear as to the definition of 'strategic development' . With the amount of development already
undertaken on Chilton Fields, and proposed this site would seem invaluable kept as
sports/recreation area. There will be a greater need for this type of area especially if there is
further development. It would appear to fly in the face of the LDF and policy stated if Mid Suffolk
In light of the schools review and potential for the High School to expand it would seem short-
sighted not to hold onto this in view of the proximity to the school, as a potential Sixth form etc.
This development would not seem appropriate as again the impact on the enviroment would be
considerable and contribute to lost of identity of the village by narrowing the gap between the
This site would seem appropriate for development; in view of the relief road and existing housing
it would seem suitable. The size of the plot would meet a considerable amount of the overall
This area would seem appropriate for some development given the proximately to the A14 and
access. The plot would not unduly impact on the enviroment or surrounding views.
Development of any nature on this large site would have a dramatic impact on the nature of the
town and the Visual impact of the approach into Stowmarket , as the land slopes downward. The
site would seem again too large to be considered as a whole and possible dividing the site to
smaller fewer plots may be able to consider some development/bearing in mind the landscape
It would seem appropriate to redevelop this site to accommodate the potential grow in the
The size and position of this site would seem appropriate for development.
The size and position of this site would seem appropriate for development.
I chose this as a preferred site (ie green dot!) as suitable because a) it has good road access,
on the bus route, handy for village centre, schools, library etc.
I was very against this for development. It is beautiful open countryside - well outside the village
services (except the church!) and would really I feel spoil Thurston to a great degree.
All No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Good.
No.
No flood risks. Popular village with all services and employment.
No.
No.
Unlikely.
B1113 designated lorry route. Proposals off B1113.
No.
No.
Due to the large number of landbirds (over 700) we are unable to provide specific comments as
to the suitability of specific locations. We are comfortable that none of the existing sites appear
to pose a direct threat to the designated nature conservation interests in the area such as
Redgrave and Lopham Fen NNR. We would hope that the Councils closer inspection of these
landbirds using the Site Selection Criteria would identify the most suitable sites for development.
The Triangle: Consider the other starter units at Stradbroke and Debenham. Very low uptake of
units indeed. Traffic would also be a problem during the building phase. Please provide proof of
evidence of need for this development. Wildlife also present. A140 is already an over-crowded
road. Developing for the sake of it sets a very bad precedent for the following reasons: (1)
Negative visual impact. (2) Disturbance of wildlife, particularly reptile who have a hard time in
Brome Triangle - this would dramatically alter our local landscape if it was developed. Up until
now on one has wanted it - it was earmarked for a garden centre at one time. However, it has
been suggested that MSDC will alter what they permit there in order to get it built on. Has this
Eye Airfield - Reference the land owned by Roy Humphrey that has just been fenced. Is it part of
this 16a/40 acre land designation?. If so the designation has changed - it has not been in the
industrial site before - if not then (a) Where is this 40 acres still scheduled for development? (b)
I wish to record my disappointment that my land bid was not even considered and ask for an
explanation of the illogical way it was ignored. The Core Strategey for the Local Development
Framework places Stoke Ash in the Secondary Village category. This category is to be allowed
too have infill development within the current settlement boundary to utilise and sustain what
services exist now. However Stoke Ash has NO land left within its current settlement area for
development. Please tell me if any of the other Secondary villages listed have NO land left for
infill development. I will be surprised if there are any. Stoke Ash as become a Countryside
village by default. Any limited infill development other Secondary villages can have is
unavailable in Stoke Ash. This denies Stoke Ash the chance to sustain the services it was
recognised to have when placed in that category. I will be very interested to hear how your Team
Personally you will be aware my land bit was for the settlement line to be reinstated to what it
was in 1989. Neither my two neighbours nor I were informed that the line was being amended in
1998 (see appendix for anomalies). In 2002 I decided to enter this land bid. Hopefully to be able
to build a two bed roomed bungalow in our one acre garden for my wife and I. This would be
more appropriate for our elder years than our current four bed roomed house. However the Land
Bid process was delayed time and again. We decided to go ahead with the planning application
in 2006. This was refused so we had it brought up at the Councillors Planning Committee. We
were successful at the North Area Meeting but it was referred, being contrary to policy. At the
Referral Meeting we had our application rejected by 8 to 6 with two asbtentions. The Chairman in
rallying opposition to our case ironically said this is a good case for the Land Bid scheme, how
wrong he was. You can see how we feel the planning procedures are protracted, inflexible and
In my view this site is the most suitable for development as housing in the Eye area . Although it
is outside the existing town development boundary for this site lays between existing housing
and the Eye airfield. It is also better located for the town centre and the health centre as will as
employment opportunities at airfield industrial units.
These sites, being to the East of Victoria Hill, face open countryside and if developed would lead
to further applications for development and ribbon development further north along the main road
towards Brome. For example the application for 4h has been prompted by the development at
Whitehouse Farm. This will result in real intrusion into the countryside whereas the development
In recent years most trransport companies that resided in Diss have moved to industrial units
around Eye. This has made the junction with the A140 much more congested. The junction at
Yaxley is also extremely congested at peak times because of the high school in Castleton Way.
With 280 new dwellings to be built in the next 20 years this will lead to a further 400 cars
approximately in and around the Eye area. Improvements to these existing road junctions most
In an easy travelling distance of schools, village stores and amenities as villages which have had
development ie Kenton.
Use only sites that do not require the removal of trees. Use all development to fill up the centre
and give Norton a more "village feel" and avoid the elongation of the all ready considerable
There is not sufficient room for any more development in Debenham. Debenham is a village not
a town, drainage, sewage, schools, health, will not be able to cope with any more houses.

Good potential industrial area due to proximity A140 and existing use.
Removal of brown field haulage site. A change of use fits with planning policy and will remove
some HGV traffic from the village (Mendlesham has problems with HGVs using unsuitable road,
particulary in the Conservation Area). Site next to School and Playingfield amenities, shop and
pubs. Located on main, straight part of Stowmarket Road - accessible site. Opposite existing
housing development - will not impact on open countryside/character of Mendlesham.
Size and location suitable - adjacent to existing housing developments, access to Cotton Road.
Whilst there are concerns about the size of this combined site, it does provide the opportunity to
provide a new road which would move traffic (including HGV, Coach etc) away from the centre
of Mendlesham which is a conservation area. The new road would need to be a condition of any
development and there would have to be buffered verges and landscaping to prevent noice and
an impact on the visuallly important open areas on the south east and south west of
Site is preferred due to size and location adjacent to existing development and Cotton Road.
Any development would not impact on the open countryside or the character of Mendlesham.
Site is adjacent to sheltered housing site, Mason Court and Health Surgery providing an
opportunity for more bungalows (sheltered housing and or affordable housing)
Site may be required for future development of school/playingfields/Community Centre site/ car
park. Road access extremely poor
Large brownfield site, in open countryside, next to village woodland. Any development would be
remote from Mendlesham and services.
Size of plot too big, location outside village, visually important area.
Not suitable for industrial use - opposite village woodland.
Site opposite village woodland and on outskirts of village.
Parish Council considers that there are better sites for development.
Green area, visually important open space, close to church.
Planning history - application for house declined due to being outside settlement boundary.
Area prone to flooding.
On the settlements list - Barham has been included as part of Claydon . This is wrong. It is NOT
part of Claydon. Barham is a small rural area and is smaller than Henley, Coddenham nearby.
Barham should be PLACED in the same section as Coddenham and Henley.
Barham - This area is already overdeveloped. None of these sites should be developed.
Schools are already virtually full. Traffic has increased a lot. The 14 & 38 homes being
developed will already place a large burden on services with all further development taking place.
Great Blakenham or Blakenham Magna which you have it listed under- we are not part of
Claydon but a village on our own
Pleased to see this on secondary village list. - There has been too (much) much development
recently and certainly not meeting local needs - we have not even got a shop - nothing to occupy
the young people. Stop building in Worlingworth.
Least appropriate for future development. This area of the village is a Conservation Area. Some
of the existing buildings are listed and one of Historical Importance. There will be an impact on
visually important open space (8h). If 4h , 6h, and 5h were developed, Stradbroke Hall (a
medieval building of Historical Importance) would be surrounded by new buildings. This part of
the village has already got traffic congestion due to the narrow road and primary school. Building
here would increase the traffic and be a possible danger to the school children . There would be
Most appropriate for future development. L - 14h - The village would benefit greatly from
additional recreation facilites on adjacent land. 2sb & 2L - This would seem to be a natural
choice as it backs onto existing new development and does not interfere with the traffic (already
NOT acceptable as there is inadequate highway access (single track road)
No objections to these sites being incorporated within the settlement boundary but the Parish
Council would want to see housing which meets the needs of local people in terms of mix, size
Whilst the Parish Council acknowledges that the B1113 would support additional vehicle
movements it considers that the existing highway through Back Hills/Market Place are
inadequate and could not support further significant development in this area.
The Parish Council feels that any further development would not only be harmful to existing open
aspect of the immediate area but it would have a considerable impact on the setting of the
adjoining open countryside and also the Conservation Area. For this reason it feels that it is
important that the area is included within either the adjoining Conservation Area of Rickinghall &
Botesdale or within the area designated as a Special Landscape Area, which also abuts the site.
NOT acceptable - the Parish Council considers that development of this site would have a
negative impact on the visual amenity of the area and extend development too far outside of the
existing settlement boundary into open countryside.
Considered unsuitable because of the potential for flooding problems in Water Lane.
See site 3h.
Considered suitable for linear development only with housing to reflect existing development in
Considered inappropriate backland development.
Considered inappropriate - would destroy the village aspect on entry and would set an
unacceptable precedent for further development along the A143 bypass corridor.
Considered inappropriate - as Site 4h too close to the A143 bypass
Considered inappropriate - Wetland site/flood plain site in a designated (1998 Local Plan)
Special Landscape Area.
Considered suitable for 1 or 2 road frontage dwellings.
Support the extension of an existing business development sufficient but only up to the 0.5 Ha
suitabler for up to 5 new units max.
Considered inappropriate backland development.
Considered inappropriate see 4h &5h.
Considered inappropriate see 4h & 5h.
Considered that although this is some distance outside of the main village centre it is close to
facilities offered within Gislingham and could provide a suitable site for a small development of
There is a well-used public footpath that crosses the field diagonally. Development of this site
would inevitably reduce the enjoyment of ordinary pedestrians, dog walkers, bird watchers,
joggers and many others who use this footpath every day. (Criterion; Significant impacts on the
Development on this site would also detract from the setting for the listed building that is adjacent
to the proposed development. (Criterion; Impact on listed building)
Development on either of these sites would be a visual intrusion on this very open edge of the
village. The importance of the visual aspect of this area was identified in the Village Design
Statement appended to the 2005 Parish Plan. (Criterion; Impact on visually important open
The residentail amenity of those living in Fitzgerald Road would be severely compromised if
either of these two land bids were to be successful. All the residents have enjoyed an open view
to the front of their properties since occuping their respective properties. Any development
would be detrimental to all those who would now be overlooked. (Criterion; Significant impacts
Village identity is very important to the residents of Bramford (as identified in the Parish Plan).
Bramford is in close proximity to both Ipswich and Sproughton and development that eats away
at the open space between the village and these other centres should be avoided. Proposals
NB - 3h and 1h/1LR clearly could be seen as another step in the loss of our village identity by
reducing the differential between Bramford and Spropughton. (Criterion; Any other planning
The field that is the subject of these land bids is something of a haven for local wildlife. Hedges
and trees on the edges of the field and the proximity of the river help to attract a wide variety of
birdlife. Skylarks nest in the open areas of the field in summer and badges and foxes are
occasionally seen crossing the field at dusk and early in the morning. (Criterion: Significant
The proposed sites would need vehicular access close to a bend in Fitzgerald Road where there
is substandard forward visability. There are occasional accidents on this bend already. Luckily
none of them have involved any injuries yet, as far as I am aware, but these proposals would
increase the likelihood of further accidents. (Criterion; Are there any specific site constaints -
These proposed sites are on green field land. The Bramford Parish Plan, published in 2005,
states that the residents of Bramford object to green field development, especially when there is
previously developed land within the parish that is not being utilized. (criterion; Is it a previously
developed (brownfield) site or is it green field land ?).
The area adjacent to 'Church House' is wholly inappropriate for consideration as a potential site
for development. As owners of 'Church House' we vehemently object to any proposals
whatsoever relating to any progress on this issue.. Our reasons are as follows: 1. Visually
important open space surrounded and within a Conservation Area in the centre of a village. 2.
The open area including pond (subject to flooding ) is surrounded by listed buildings on 3 sides.
3. The land, currently agricultural, has never been previously developed. 4. Access to the land
is across a private driveway and immediately adjacent to a grade II listed house.5. Subsequent
access onto the Main 'B' road has major and serious constraints with respect to ' visibility splay'.
(Insert 5ba)
Destroys setting listed building Dagwood Farm. Creates a precident for building in front of all
listed building along Ashfield Road. Both developments create ribbon development and intrude
Destroys setting listed buildings Whjite House Farm, Willow Farm, Mulberry Farm. Poor road
access for entrance.
Also suffers from poor drainage facilities there are already drainage problems for stormwater
along Ashfield Road particularly at Oak Lane.
These are part of an SLA. The Council do not know how this can be considered part of a 'high
tech' corridor, with no direct access to the A14. These are also within an existing weight
restricted area and may soon be outside it, providing no route NW through Needham Market for
The Council has no objection.
The Council has no objection.
This represents tentacular development toward Stowmarket and should be avoided.
These sites would be too intrusive on the sky line and impact an SLA, to be avoided.
The Unilever factory site has not been included in the Land Bid document. This is a brown field
site. In conjunction with the Chalk Pit 7h these brownfield sites will be able to satisfy MSDCs
If Green field sites were required, without resorting favour sites 3h and 4h. We imagine these
projected requirements until 2020,the Council would to any greenfield development whatsoever.
could support approx 150 new homes. This would satisfy all MSDCs projected requirements
through until 2025.
These sites are on the skyline, and are too prominent an intrusion into the Barking valley, to be
Outside the existing settlement boundary and would 'join up' Creeting St Mary with Needham
Market, to be avoided.
Valuable VIOS, which should be retained as such.
Land at Mill Green Farm - This site is in a designated Conservation Area and will make a large
impact on visually important open space. One of the main constraints is lack of traffic access.
Mill Street is only a narrow single traffic road with no footpath and deep drainage ditches each
side. On traffic generation it would cause great problems for residents already living here.
On the environment it would make a big impact on wild life such as la colony of water voles on
my pond at this address plus all the wildlife which use it as a watering hole and swallows which
On infrastructure it would affect drainage and sewerage which is already a problem in Mill Street.
On residential amenity we would get extra traffic and light pollution and be overlooked by houses
into mainly bungalows. One other big impact to Stowupland residents would be the loss of open
space to the many dog and leisure walkers who use Mill Street and footpath across fields.
1. We do not support any of the Land Bids submitted within the village.
2. We would like to see our allotments given special protection and a guarantee that they will
never be developed for housing.
Inappropriate. Site is currently greenfield and will extend the village in effect, beyond its current
Inappropriate. Will tend to join Redgrave with proposed development of Botesdale. Would far
exceed needs for affordable housing.
My brother and I are disappointed that Thorndon is too small to be considered for site
allocations. We own a small price of land which was 18-19 Hall Road, which we hope in time be
used for small cottages so that the village people can have a chance to buy affordable homes.
I consider this site very inappropriate for future development as:
b} The site is not well located to existing services such as shops, railway station.
c) There is already a defined end to linear development along Stoney Lane, at the junction with
d) The site sits high to the railway line, so the latter does not form a 'defensible boundary',
e) This site frontage consists or a substantial hedgerow (and ditch) which acts as a natural
progression from village outskirts to countryside. Development would remove/seriously
I consider this site very inappropriate for future development as:
a) It is totally out of scale with the size of the village.
b) It would have detrimental effects on infrastructure capacity, traffic generation, and the
c) The site does not relate well to the existing village and services such as shops, railway station.
d) This is basically open countryside, with extensive views (including those to Thurston and
Pakenham Churches) which should be preserved.
I consider this site inappropriate for future development as:
a) This is basically open countryside with wide views towards Pakenham.
b) It would have detrimental effect on traffic generation, the environment, and probably on
5. The nearest Health Surgery is some distance away in Bury St Edmunds or Woolpit and the
local PCT does not have sufficient funds to man a new one in Thurston.
I consider this site appropriate for future development as:
a) It is a brownfield site.
b) It relates well to existing services.
d. Hopefully this is the type of site the environment and traffic generation.
c) It would have minimal impact onthat can best provide affordable accommodaton for local
people.
1. It is a Greenfield site to the East of Thurston and part of the area is liable to flood.
2. It is good agricultural land the East,known and West are narrow and unsuitable for large
3. The surrounding roads to and is a South inhabitat for various amphibious wild life.
vehicles. Access to the South is restricted by the railway (via a small narrow over bridge or a
narrow height limited under bridge).
4. Gas, Electricity, Water and Drainage services are currently very limited.
5. The nearest Health Surgery is some distance away in Bury St Edmunds or Woolpit and the
local PCT does not have sufficient funds to man a new one in Thurston.
6. The village Post Office/General Store is on the West side of Thurston with access through a
number of existing housing estates. Furthermore if the PO services are withdrawn there is a
7. Being on the very Eastern edge of Thurston the inclusion of development here will intrude
well into the countryside, alter the whole layout of Thurston effectively creating a "Ribbon
Development". Something that surely should be avoided.
I consider this site most appropriate when the list of criteria is taken into account. The fact that
Fressingfield is listed as a Primary Village suggest that a need for future limited development
exists. Houses sell in Fressingfield so there is a demand. Planning history of the site goes back
to the purchase of the school site which assumed development of site 3h in providing
appropriate access (a publicly adopted road of a standard to meet a housing development
requirement). In the mean time it has failed to be included in the settlement boundary because
At the last appeal it was excluded because of the number of in fill sites deemed to be available
but was suggested as a prime site for the future. It is a greenfield site, formally part of a small-
holding on which the school was built. It is not viable agricultural land. It is well related to the
village in fact it is bounded on three sides by the settlement boundary and would fit almost
unseen into the village. It is accessible to both school and health centre by foot as well as the
rest of the village facilities. It is not a designated area and is not impacted by those criteria listed
under items 10, 11 or 12. With going to to item 13: at the time of the school development
The primary school is probably respect be looking for children in the coming years and young
people staying in or moving to the village would be a good thing. The health centre equally
Traffic situation should not significantly be effected except as in any place near a school for a
short time in the morming and again mid-afternoon.
Generally there are no features of significance that would be affected other than the old
boundary hedge along the footpath to the south which would almost certainly be retained. There
are no rights of way across the site. The impact on adjacent developments would be small. The
houses along Stradbroke Road have long gardens and the nearer houses are of similar density
to that envisaged. As all the sites on the map for Fressingfield lie outside the settlement
boundary I consider that this one has least impact on the visual quality of the village acts as an in
fill rather than an extension of the village envelope and is of the right size to fullful the needs of
The sites 4h and NB 7h I consider to be the least suitable. Both are too large and if developed in
an on going manner would create an urbanisation of the village in the case of 4h and a highly
visible modern development in the case of NB 7h. Both areas are agriculturally viable and do
not need to be developed with other sites being available. All the sites except 3h tend to extend
the village outside its natural envelope with respect of open countryside.
Land bid had been submitted on behalf of this site, which is considered to meet the required
criteria. The site is located close to the centre of the village and convenient for the facilities. Gt.
Finborough has been designated as a primary village and this would provide centrally located,
This site United Reform narrow These Road and parking areas.
Oppositeis land between Chapel. Gipping are ChapelChurch Road. Very busy cars and lorries
most of the time can't have access, so no means of getting in or out either side. There is a lot of
No. Millgreen Farm. This is narrow single car road coming out onto Stowmarket Road. Busy
roadway on to A1120. No room for extra traffic in and out.
Bramford, site adjacent to Fitzgerald Road. This site is at present an arable field with a right of
way passing through. I consider that it is unsuitable to build housing on this site given that the
field is part of a farm containing an area of conservation interest. Most months there are skylarks
in residence on this site and I feel we should treasure any farmland birds given the catastrophic
decline in their numbers recently. Has an environmental assessment been done on this site in
relation to species living here? This development proposal will have a detrimental effect on
I feel that Bramford does not have the infrastructure to support a massive increase in residents.
Especially with the extra proposal on Paper Mill Lane it seems that little thought has been given
to issues such as drainage, services and extra school places that will be needed. The proposal
to include a football field on the site is an unnecessary sop to try and push this submission
through. We do not need any additional playing fields in this village as there is already a large
amenity on the other side of Bramford and a school field that is used on weekends for football
I refer to the consultation leaflet of Novermber 2007 Site Specific Allocations!, I understand that
the designation of Creeting St Mary to a secondary village would give the village prognosis of nil
housing allocations for a period of over fifteen years (ref 2) in other words, a nil growth factor.
This is difficult to comprehend when the village is sited adjacent to Needham Market and when
the proposed Core Strategy recommends extending employment allocations to Needham
market, along with Stowmarket, etc (ref 3c). Creeting St Mary benefits from easy access to both
the A14 and A140 with the advantage of accessing these without entering Needham Market, yet
The proposed land bids (Map TMO55EZ) appear to abut the settlement boundary of Needham
Market as favoured sites. Building on these sites will enlarge the town and arguably rob its
identity as a small country town. I therefore appeal that the designation of C.S.M. as a
This land bid, submitted in April 2005, has been superseded by planning permission O547/06.
Permission for a change of use from a pig fattening unit to three dwellings was granted by MSDC
as an exception to policy in consideration of an environmental problem and the residential
amenity of neighbours. It was not the intention of either of the two planning committees that
considered this application, nor of the Parish Council nor neighbours who supported it, that more
than three houses should be built on this land. I am in agreement with MSDC's policy of not
considering land bids in 'Secondary' or 'countryside' villages and do not support any further
At the last Public Inquiry this site was rejected for housing development because of the likely
traffic movement problems. These problems are becoming ever greater because of the
increasing number of vehicles coming into local ownership. Street parking and the narrowing of
the road make Anderson Close entirely inadequate and unsuitable as an access road.
This site is outside the existing Settlement Boundary. Development on this site would have a
serious adverse impact on what is a visually beautiful open space containing much wildlife.
Not Appropriate: Outside the Settlement Boundary; Drainage from this site to Low Road could
increase existing flooding issues; Site has a low environmental score in the MSDC Sustainability
Not Appropriate: Outside the Settlement Boundary; No Road Access unless in connection with
the two adjacent sites, then it would be too large for existing infrastructure. Drainage from this
site to Low Road could increase flooding issues.
Not Appropriate: Outside the Settlement Boundary; Very poor access via Thorpe Lane which
consistently floods; Lower part of site is in the flood plain.
Not Appropriate: Outside the Settlement Boundary, Low Road is not suitable for access, it is a
single carriageway road that regularly floods and the lower part of the site is in the flood plain.
Surrounded by ancient hedging; important local wildlife site.
No Major Comments: Least contentious site; it is inside Settlement Boundary; it is however
adjacent to the flood plain.
Not Appropriate: Outside the Settlement Boundary; Only should be considered if the condition of
no building of any kind permitted in perpetuity. Further development of village along upper part
of Gracechurch Street should not be permitted.
Not Appropriate: Outside the Settlement Boundary; Access via Kenton Road that is a heavily
used approved lorry route. Not easy access to centre of the village; site is adjacent to an
established woodland and newly created lake and woodland area.
Not Appropriate: Outside the Settlement Boundary; Lower part of site in the flood plain;
Expanding village into open farm land; Very poor Environmental Score in the Sustainability
Land including part of Stowmarket Football Club - Sport England will only support development
of this site if replacement playing fields are provided (if any are to be lost), in compliance with
exception E4 of our Playing Fields Policy 'A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England'.
Chilton Fields Sports Ground - Sport England will only support development of this site if
replacement playing fields are provided in full compliance with exception E4 of our Playing Fields
Policy 'A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' and Para 15 of PPG17.
3d) Appro question 1 - see attached map/plan. The neighbouring farmer concerned has already
sold areas of land to straighten this boundary and I feel this should be incorporated within the
Settlement Boundary. Areas b, c & d are already incorporated into the gardens of the adjoining
properties and can no longer be described as agricultural land and various non-agricultural
Appro the area coloured/shaded blue - the disused farm buildings - the conversion of these to
residential use would be in no way detrimental to the immediate area. In fact this would be an
asset as the alternative is the continual gradual decline of these buildings thus becoming a
further eyesore - in particular as they abutt a public footpath. The buildings are not practical for
storage of large modern farm equipment and the use of the stables land bullock yard for their
original use would be detrimental, if not a health hazard, due to the close proximity of the
neighbouring pub's kitchen and restaurant. Therefore I feel that redevelopment of these barns
This area offers the potential for a significant amount of housing. The obvious access to/from
the B1077 would appear to be via Progress Way. I would be concerned about a significant extra
quantity of traffic using the new access road which was created for the new small development
immediately to the north of the redundant pig farm near LLB-7sb.
If there is to be increased traffic, resulting from residential development on this road,
improvements need to be made to speed control.
If there is to be economic expansion to the North of Eye along with an increase in residential
numbers then consideration should be given to creating a separate cycle/pedestrian way leading
to the various employment sites to the north of Eye. At the moment there is a pavement to the
redundant pig farm and then you have to contend with traffic on what is a narrow road (see
above note re speed control). There should be a roundabout or lights where the B1077 joins the
I appreciate some of these comments should probably be made to one or more of the highways
authorities and I would be grateful if you would let me know which authority/ies I should write to.
Entrance to this site appears to only be a narrow track between 2 houses which doesn't appear
to be able to be widened [houses either side are old (possibly listed??)] A fatal accident has
already occurred at this spot but on the Woodfields entrance junction side.
Has access through Farriers Close and is quite close to shops. Close to school and leisure
Both these sites are well related to the built up areas of the village as they arleady have adjacent
developments - Westhall - 4h and Shelton Hill/Drapers Hill - 6h. Access appears to be possible
via the existing developments. Both sites close to school and shops.
If access is via Mill Lane, in its present form, problems will occur. This is a narrow piece of
roadway used by the Skinners Mill traffic which includes lorries. Skinners Mill is located on the
I think there would be a big safety issue involved with having a narrow lane, lorries, extra cars to
the development and pedestrians which would include children and buggies, all trying to use the
Is the access for this site via the New Street bungalow site? Access through the bungalows, I
think would create a safety issue for the residents whom, I think, are mainly elderly and also
Also the site is on the very edge of the village not close to the amenities. Another point which
might be considered from a different angle, is that the land given in return for building consent on
14h is that the Parish Council would incur costs for the upkeep of this land (L - 15r) which might
Most appropriate
Possibly
Least appropriate 1. Far too large 2. Outside present planning area, and, one would hope, future
planning envelope. 3. Would greatly spoil most attractive piece of countryside. 4. Infrastructure
non existant. 5. Far removed from the few services our village has to offer. 6. Detrimental
impact on the enviroment. 7. This proposal has absolutely nothing to recommend it.
We understand that under the Core Strategy Document is is possible that our land bid would be
discounted on the grounds that the property is within the parish of Onehouse, a village which has
been determined to lack facilities appropriate to sustain further development. We request that
our bid is considered in conjunction with land bids 9h and LLB 20h, because of the site's
proximity of Stowmarket ( the land covered by the land bid is well outside the village of
This site off Upper Rose Lane was originally earmarked for a new primary school in 1996, though
the county council subsequently decided that it was no longer necessary . This is surprising,
considering the unsatisfactory state of Palgrave Primary School buildings and facilities, which are
not appropriate or adequate for a school today. I believe that planning application no. 1517/07,
which covers half of this site, has been approved by planning committee, but the Palgrave
School governing body was not, I understand, notified of this application, and the parish council
did not notify them either. As a result, there appear to have been no objections raised and the
application has presumably been approved. This is regrettable, and it is hoped that it may still be
This site, immediately next to the railway line, is totally unsuitable for residential development. In
2003 an application was made to build 18 houses on the site off Crossing Road, which has now
been developed by Gipping Valley Property Company. This was rejected because of the risk of
a serious accident on Crossing Road, perhaps involving a collision on the level crossing. Since
then, a further eight planning applications have been made for this site and 15 houses built
(three of these in a renovated Burlington Lodge) at the expense of destruction of much of the
environment and invasion of privacy of Burlington Close residents. The site identified as 6h is
unsuitable for residential development. It is right next to the railway line, and the exiting of more
cars onto Crossing Road would increase the road danger. It would be quite wrong for the
landowner to achieve an excessive number of homes on Crossing Road by a salami slicing
Walsham-le-Willows - Sites within the village envelope should be considered as long as planning
criteria are met. - These comments assume that sites 2h & 2e have significantly contributed
already to CS8 Provision and Distribution of Housing. Parish Council in response to core
Strategy Submission (Oct 07) commented that adequate infrastructure should be in place before
This site meets criteria and is a possibility for development. The rest of the sites are not
appropriate being outside the village envelope. L - 3h, 1h, LLB - 4h, LLB - 5h, NB - 7h
I am most concerned at the inclusion of the above parcels of land into the current planning
review. In short the plots in question are "landlocked" for accessibility and transport and would
increase surface water flows into the local streams that may cause flooding downstream
(although recent work on the Combs Ford culvert may mitigate this to an extent). Access to the
areas in question via either Poplar Hill or Edgcombe Road is already under stress as would be
evidenced by the roadside carpark in these thoroughfares outside the working day when busses
have a great deal of difficulty negotiating the roads in question. We note from earlier planning
consultations that the Council is obliged to consider brownfield redevelopment in precedent to
green field projects, particularly where those brownfield developments have easier and more
direct access to the shops and commercial centre of the town rather than have another
development on the periphery on a greenfield site which, would inevitably require additional
Further, without specific information as to the state of the sewers in the vicinity we would
anticipate that this too would require additional capacity which inevitably will cause disruption all
the way down to the pumping station adjacent to the Esso Garage in Combs Ford.
We are currently making representations in support of our clients bid ("11ob), located to the north
of the village of Elmswell in the context of promoting its suitability and potential for housing
allocation within the Mid-Suffolk Site Specific Issues and Options document. In light of the
above, it has been brought to our attention that there has been a slight discrepancy in the
scoring of the above site within the document entitled 'Sustainability Appraisal for submitted land
bids for Mid Suffolk District Council Site Specific Land Proposals' , a document that will form part
of the evidence base for the eventual preferred options document. Within the scoring
framework of this document. our site has been assigned as "other bid", despite its quite clear
intentions to promote as a residential allocation (see its description), which has meant it has
been scored incorrectly by the County Council as a non-residential site. Our client's site is
 Such an error could obviously have consequences for our clients's holdings in the context of the
representation process, given the scoring process and the effect this has on the appropriateness
or otherwise of an allocation being made. Such potentially misinformed interpretations of site
"11ob" would no doubt increase the chances of it being unfairly excluded from the forthcoming
Preferred Options round of consultations. Such an outcome would run contrary the principles of
PPS 12 - Local Development Frameworks and would be unacceptable in the eyes of the
Inspectorate. The current information contained within the Sustainability Appraisal must
therefore be re-evaluated in the correct fashion, with our client's site being properly assessed as
Having contacted a member of the Research & Monitoring Group (Strategic Development
Division), Environment and Transport Directorate at Suffolk County Council, we are advised to
flag this error within our representations, which we are currently in the process of undertaking
and a copy of these will be with you later this week. As a precursor to this and because we
understand that the Issues and Options consultation for the Site Specifics document is still in
progress we would like advise you that we are highly unsatisfied with the current circumstances,
especially regarding the issue of the incorrect score our site has been assigned by the County
We request that this matter be investigated by yourselves as soon as possible in order to prevent
our client's site from being further judged by members of the public, statutory consultees and
other interest groups involved with the process on the basis of an incorrect evidence base.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct description of the bid
        -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land bid documents
        Leave any decision or comment until more information is available regarding future of middle school op
        Would recommend one dwelling with rural distinctiveness in character with nearby houses.
        The parish council think this has already been actioned.
Not suitable for development in any way. Site on bad bend and too far out of village centre.
Not suitable for any development. Next to agreed amenity area. Also no footpath on B1113 and road is narro
Definitely not suitable for any development. It would mean the loss of vital amenity area which is
playing field, play area and football pitch and changing facilities.
Do not recommend for development, leave as it is. Do not need more houses here apart from
perhaps some affordable houses.
Not suitable for development. Bad access. Difficulty with levels for sewage plant. No more
houses needed in this centre of the village as it will cause congestion. This is also a low level
Not suitable, less intrusive area would be more suitable for development.
This area is considered suitable for development. Its position adjoining the B1113 is helpful. A
suggestion is the whole area is divided into 3. 1/3 to the north be for small rural businesses. 1/3
to the south for housing with as many as possible of affordable housing. The central area be for
a recreational area, this kind of area is sadly lacking in the village. Included in this would be
required a footpath alongside the B1113 and a green buffer area of up to 10m wide.
Not suitable for any development. Poor access and on area approaching bad bend. The same
comments apply to NB 16h.
Not suitable. Area other side of road now over developed. No footpath, dangerous road.
This area is already developed. Suitable for similar further development for rural industry.
Suitable for rural business which brings employment. This particular area not suitable for
affordable houses or recreation but land owner may be able to provide land for these items
 At this present time Debenhams infrastructure cannot cope with anymore large scale residential
development. 1. Doctors surgery already overstretched. No room to expand. Parking in road
already a major problem. 2. Schools - Both schools would need to be extended. Once again
parking a great problem (particularly primary school.) 3. Police Station totally inadequate
service. When police cars and staff at station - no response from within. 4. Sewerage - Low
Road especially. When there is very heavy rain - manhole covers lift and sewerage pours out.
5. Parts of Debenham are in a flood plain. If arable land is to be covered with all these new
develoopments where is the surface water to go.!! For these reasons alone, we are totally
This ia not needed in view of NB - 5h & 5e. Development here would contravene the Parish Plan
and a history of planning refusals. This area is a green field site preserving the visually important
open southern approach to the village. It is adjacent to the Gipping Flood Plain and
Development would significantly impact upon existing drainage, sewerage and traffic limitations
along Fitzgerald Road. Development would encourage future 'Ribbon Development' toward
Sproughton. NB - 3h would prejudicially impact upon a listed building of historic and
Not needed, Bramford has a football pitch and recreation ground. No proposed development is
indicated. If residential then see 1h NB - 3h & 1Lr
This is the best site as it has been previously developed and has close access to the A14 ,
Ipswich and Schooling in Claydon. Road problems can be overcome by design, and water
meadows to the west retained for Leisure/Recreation and country access minimal impact on
Health Centre and School need better access and more parking in order that the housing
growth can be appropriatly accommodated. The site behind the Health Centre and School would
allow access from Old Stowmarket Road. This would solve the problem. I would be happy to
Thurston suffers from considerable traffic problems at the present moment; any increased
development within the village would make a difficult situation, virtually intolerable. The following
are just two examples of present difficulties. 1. Traffic congestion around the Post Office Stores
in Barton Road. The problems here can often amount to an actual traffic hazzard. 2. Parking
outside St. Peters Church - during special services, large weddings, funerals etc. chaotic parking
can often result in large vehicles being unable to pass. We once had a very nasty incident when
an ambulance was unable to proceed. This situation has been on-going for many years but has
The whole site lies well beyond the main village amenities in Thurston and would, if developed,
create a new and completely separate hamlet. There would be considerable intrusion into
surrounding countryside and there would be more than usual traffic generation owing to the
distances involved in accessing amenities such as railway station, shops, schools etc. Surely not
A large section of this site, lying adjacent to Rectory Gardens, was for many years, a large pit
and used as a general rubbish dump. The pit was filled in some time ago and the land reverted
to agricultural use. There must, however be some question of land stability and also questions
about land contamination. Hardly suitable for development.
A large increase of residential is impractical as - GP Surgery, Police, drainage, Schools and
general infrastructure is at its limit now following the most recent development of The Meadows.
If there were further developments affordable housing must be a priority.
Do not agree. Green field site.
Do not agree. Road too narrow for vehicular access.
Do not agree. Not enough vehicular access to Low Road as Low Road too narrow.
Do not agree. 1. Children crossing busy main road which is very fast in spite of traffic calming.
This traffic calming is insufficient and needs some sort of chicane type calming.
Do not agree. 1. Green field site. 2. Wildlife hedges. 3. Public right of way.
Not approved of 1. Increased traffic near primary school. 2. Green field site.
It would seem obvious both looking at the map and at the site that this is a perfect infill site with
sites all developed to both sides and to the front on the Cotton side of the road. In Key Service
This seems another good infill site with other sites developed all around. Although Cotton is not
a Key Service Centre, this site is only the other side of the road to Bacton and the village centre.
 Land adjacent to Fitzgerald Road, Bramford regarded as least appropriate! This is an unspoilt
"green field" which if developed would detract from Gipping Valley Amenity.
All of the proposed areas of development will bring further chaos to an already overload road
system in Stowupland.
Is totally unacceptabl. Try getting on to Church Road via Thorney Green or on the B115
opposite Garage, at 08.00am now is almost impossible if you tried to do this yourself you would
This development, looks bigger than the whole of "Stowupland Heights". City type developments
are not needed in our Village. It will just add years and more traffic to our already overloaded
roads. When, will you learn, we need much smaller infill types of building, to keep our Village a
Village Green Belt. Land should be kept for our Village life style not for mass housing projects.
"Revised and clarified land bid received in response to consultation - can be viewed at Council
Least appropriate - visually important open space. Open Space - intrusion into countryside
overlooking residential amenity - previously rejected.
Most appropriate. Ex industrial - These 2 sites would meet the Councils needs well into the
Most suitable. Brownfield site, little impact on residential amenity. Good use of redundant
Greenfield site. No necessity - least appropriate. Previous refusals. Negative impact on open
space Flooding risk. Impact on enviroment negative. Highways issues, negative inpact on
The development of the land of agricultural use is causing concern.
Development would be a positive improvement for a deteriorating site, rescuing listed buildings
and further defining and enhancing the character of this part of the village. There would be
minimal impact on residential amenity combined with the opportunity to meet a large part of the
new housing allocation on a brownfield site. There is even scope for environmental improvement
if a country park is formed next to the railway line. However, the potential traffic problems are a
Proposed development on the Fitzgerald Road site is contrary to public wishes (expressed by
red dots covering the site at the public meeting in Claydon). It is contrary to the Parish Plan. It
contravenes Government policy as this is a greenfield site whereas brownfield sites are available
(NB - 5h, 5e). Bramford is so close to Ipswich that extending beyond the existing built boundary
would constitute urban sprawl, intrusion into the countryside, and threaten coalescence with
Sproughton. There is a history of planning refusals for the site. Development would increase
traffic dangers, increase flood risk, harm wildlife, have a detrimental impact on a special
landscape area and on the open southern approach to the village, the setting of the village
church and another listed building and its long mixed native hedge. A public footpath crosses
If this application is for housing, many of the objections to 1h, 1lr, NB - 3h apply to it too.
1. It will affect infrastructure capacity eg utility services cannot currently cope with more demand -
water/drainage & sewage. The Combs Ford surgery is already full except to existing family
members and the catchment area schools have little capacity for increased pupil roll. 2. It will
greatly increase traffic generation in an area that is already struggling to cope with multi car
families. Poplar Hills traffic calming scheme already creates a funnel for existing traffic and
Edgecombe Road during evening and weekends has cars both sides of the road making it
difficult to progress for normal cars but very difficult for public transport ie buses. 3. It crosses a
planning policy constraint whereas if the development went ahead it would increase coalescence
4. It is also in contravention of the Local Plan Written Statement which states in Para 2.3.2 The
Housing objectives of the Local Plan are:- to protect the special character of Mid Suffolk and to
maintain the separate identity of its towns, villages and the countryside. In fact, Stowmarket
Master Plan iaw Stowmarket green open space strategy states there is historic landscape and
woodland surrounding the church at combs ford and there is a need to maintain open rural
My wife and I have resided at the above address for nearly 37 years and greatly value the peace
and quiet of our small community as well as the open views and the proximity of open
countryside only a few yards away. Our road is a cul de sac with only 8 properties and no
It is therefore a great concern to see site L - 6h on your maps earmarked for possible residential
development. It is not difficult to visualise a big block of houses with access via our road, which
is too small to cope and perhaps another road out on to Victoria Hill, probably resulting in a
through road (rat run) through our area. A quiet road where residents, both adults, children and
pets, have always felt safe would change for ever and with it our quality of life.
Another big problem could be drainage. The ditch running NNW to SSE across the site and
piped from just at the back of our house under the existing development down to Castleton Way
is a main drain for at least 50 acres of land to the North. In a wet time it can carry a big volume
of water and is very important. A summer deluge of 2" of rain could produce over 2 million
gallons of surface water (1 acre inch = to 22,000 gallons) and any interference with this drain
I would suggest therefore that for these reasons site L - 6h is not suitable for residential use.
All our local communities, Highfield, Haygate, Gaye Crescent and Millfield would seem to be
small, quiet, self contained areas with their own individual identity and community spirit and
retaining a rural outlook. To maintain this situation surely it would be preferable if future housing
developments were in similar small units, each with its own access road and no through traffic.
To this end the sites along the north side of Castleton Way to the West of Millfield would seem
eminently suitable and could be used only as far back from the road as the existing
developments, say 200 metres maximum. This approach I suggest would meet your targets with
Developing this site would entail altering the settlement boundary but it does makes sense.
There are four sites under these numbers. Two are very small and could be termed infilling. The
larger ones would probably not be required for this phase of development. They have similar
advantages to 2h but not so good and not so close to the school and surgery.
Again infilling, though 3h looks unnecessarily big - application might need reconsideration to
These sites are very close to the bypass. Residential development should not abut onto busy
roads. There should be a buffer zone with tree planting.
These sites are at risk of flooding in the future.
Botesdale/Rickinghalls Key Service Centre
This is additional information to the response form. I am very surprised at the list of Primary
Villages. Stonham Aspal has very good access on the A1120 which connects with the A140. It
has a vibrant community/village hall. It has a school and employment locally, specifically at
Stonham Barns. Stonham Barns also provides shops selling food as well as crafts and it is
The site proposed at 2h would also accommodate affordable housing and would fit neatly into
the village without upsetting the street scene. The buildings would not project behind the
building line that has been extended at the neighbouring Fir Tree Lodge.
For the reasons already stated I believe that this should be considered on a pragmatic basis,
Stonham Aspal should be included in the Primary Village category and have a small allocation in
I suggest this site is not suitable for housing development, principally because the road access
through Anderson Close is totally inadequate, mainly due to on street parking and the ever
increasing number of vehicles coming into local peoples ownership. The situation will only
I notice at the Town Council Meeting 6/1/03 that the Councillors considered the size suitable for
development because it's "tucked away!!". Obviously giving no serious consideration to traffice,
parking or movement. Perhaps they should read their own monthly new letter issue no 345 (April
2004) under the heading "Police Beat" where the problem of parking on verges and footpaths is
highlighted. In regard to Anderson Close, the site was rejected for housing development at the
Last Public Enquiry in 1955, I believe because of the perceived traffic movement problems
This site, it should be remembered, is outside of the existing Settlement Boundary.
I am concerned about road traffic congestion and pedestrian safety as this site is opposite the
primary school and this area is already very congested with vehicles dropping off and picking
school children at the usual times and recent extension of double yellow lines has not improved
matters. Additional vehicles and pedestrians leaving or entering this site would only exacerbate
Possibly appropriate if on a small scale.
Inappropriate - flooding risk.
Not appropriate - infrastructure could not support it.
Inappropriate - flooding risk and road cannot support.
Appropriate - good use of brownfield site.
Further development in Debenham is not appropriate as a general principal. The village is
already losing its sense of community and cannot stand or support further development without
having its character changed negatively and irreparably. Further development would lead to
many people considering moving away as the village would no longer represent the values that
made them decide to move there. The village services also cannot support any further increase
Appropriate - High School needs more space.
Not appropriate - will spoil open land and space used for leisure.
Possibly appropriate if limited in scale.
I consider these sites to be least appropriate for development as they are likely to contravene
many on the list of criteria.
Barham Parish Council has no objection to site 2h/2lr which is in a key service area and is part
brownfield. The mature cedar tree mentioned in the plans was felled in 2004. The site can be
access from two sides and can be classed as an 'infill' site.
Although in a key service area these sites are very good agricultural value. Also because of
existing houses, all traffic will have to use Church Lane which is unacceptable.
It should be pointed out that hundreds of dwellings have been built in Claydon/Barham over past
years with little thought for leisure and recreation. SCC require the land on which our community
centre presently stands. The need for a new centre received the highest percentage voted for in
our Parish Plan. We therefore urge you very strongly to find another suitable site within these
Barham Church Lane is considered to be a natural border for the Claydon-Barham Key service
area and this site will encroach towards the countryside hierarchy area. It is also a very good
agricultural site and is regularly farmed.
These sites are in a 'countryside' area and should not be considered.
1. Ideal site as house would be inline and in keeping with local properties, with existing drop
kerb access and off road parking.
2. Excellent access to leisure sports, cycle ways, walking, fishing, bowls etc within 100 metres.
3. I minute walk to main public transport.
4. 5 minute walk to convenience shops, post office, local pubs, etc.
5. 8 minute walk to both junior and senior schools.
6. Excellent location for local employment.
7. 8 minute walk to local doctor surgery.
8. Easy access to A14 and park and ride to local town.
9. Easy access to domestic water supply, sewers and electricity and gas.
10. A property on this would visually improve the local landscape, with no risk of flooding and
Are both particularly unsuitable, both are beautiful areas and would be ruined by any
development. NB 6h in particular would 'overpower' the whole village visually. More generally,
no further major development should be allowed in Debenham. The recent "Meadows"
development was unsympathetic (3 storey 'town houses') and no account appeared to be taken
on the impact on local infrastructure. Gracechurch Street is now regularly brought to standstill
due to increase in traffic volume which such a narrow street could never cope with. Parking
anywhere near the Co-Op is often impossible since this huge development was allowed -
This is already a dangerous stretch of road, with 'blind' corner soon after exiting village, which
has had 2 serious accidents in recent years. Finally, with present enviromental concerns it is
ludicrous to build more housing for people who will have to travel 25 - 30 miles ( roundtrip to
Stowmarket or Ipswich) daily as a minimum to their employment . There is very little opportunity
Least appropriate for development 1. No demand - existing village facilities satisfactory. 2.
Greenfield site. 3. Impact on wildlife 4. Traffic generation near busy junction. 5. Loss of
amenity (noise etc) from existing houses. 6. Intrusion into countryside.
Least appropriate for development 1. Greenfield site. 2. Previously refused permission. 3.
Poor access for traffic. 4. Impact on wildlife. 5. Intrusion into countryside
Most appropriate for development. 1. Brownfield site - derelict and unsightly factory buildings.
2. A sensitive development can only have a positive visual impact on the area. 3. Increase in
traffic needs careful consideration..
Due to infilling the Village has already lost its character.
The Village has No facilites, No School, Post Office, Village Shop, Public House or Village Hall.
Noise from the A14 and Back Land Development also outside the settlement boundary.
Very limited access would be shared with other persons,
Problems exist with the sewer which is pumped up to Creeting St Mary and then by natural fall to
the sewer beds near the Lake at Needham Market.
One Bus to Stowmarket on Thursdays, Taxibus which takes about 2 hours to get into Ipswich.

Recommend land bids to be approved and ALL other submitted bids be refused.
The Parish Council is opposed to the intensification of use on this land, which is dependent upon
a single, serioudly sub-standard and dangerous vehicular access.
This correction of a drafting error is supported.
This is highly-sensitive location at the rear of dwellings sharing a congested access onto the
High Street in the Conservation Area.
Access is via steep, narrow, unmetalled track of unknown ownership; an earlier residential
proposal off Mill Lane was refused on appeal.
Any development with new access directly off the carriageway is opposed; attention is drawn to
excessive traffic speed along this stretch of road.
This land lies on the higher ground, beyond valley fold in the landscape within which most of
Coddenham lies. All existing vehicular access is seriously inadequate and already locally over-
loaded on Green Hill and School Lane. Prior to any consideration of development, the County
Council as highway authority, would need to make the investment overdue by 40 years.
Development of this land is strongly opposed. The high bank on this long bend into the heart of
the village is not only a vital warning to traffic (daily consistently exceeding both the 30 and 20
speed limits) that the very narrow High Street is ahead, but is an essential, open countryside
element of the longest-established village Conservation Area in Suffolk.
The general public were asked to put green and red dots, on the 2 sites which were not listed
correctly. So your dot count must be incorrect. Bramford parish has now obtained the correct
details of the two sites, but not the public, who voted at Claydon Village Hall.
No information of site use given at Claydon Exhibition. M.S.D.C. Had known the housing
requirements of both sites.
These two sites are on the edge of agricultural land, on the western side, and a quiet residential
community on the other.Any development would be extending the residential area towards
Combs making the green buffer zone even smaller. This would not be using a brownfield site.
We would also object to development in this area for many of the above reasons although it does
not immediately impact on our residence but is an area regularly used by us.
At present there is no access to this site via Farriers Road, being a cul de sac. It is a narrow
road and totally unsuitable for contractors' vehicles. It adjoins Edgcombe Road, a road which is
already difficult for traffic flow due to many parked vehicles. Heavy vehicles and increased traffic
along this route would have a marked impact on the area. The site is a haven for wildlife with
owls, pheasants and woodpeckers, deer and a variety of wild plants. With the loss of trees,
some of which may be preserved and hedgerows, this area would be environmentally damaged.
It has a public footpath and is used by many local people. If this was to become a residential
area, more amentities and infrastructure would have to be included. At present our schools,
doctors and dentists are overstretched. How would these services cope with the influx of many
Ribbon Development.. The brow of the Hill should be the limit of industrial expansion - Do not
There needs to be a distinction between Needham and Badley to preserve their identities - Do
This are has been affected by flooding, the drainage system would be incapable of coping with
additional houses - Do not support.
Expansion here would spoil the adjoining countryside, it is a sensitive area - Do not support.
Outside of the building area. Visually obtrusive, isolated, no access - Do not support.
Not a good housing site, liable to flooding and subsidence. If employment use would need to be
well screened since the site is visually prominent - Do not support.
Would remove distinction between settlements - Do not support
An ancient hedgetow here and part of ancient meadowland with variety of flora - Do not support.
Hawksmill is visually important and bridge and mill stream development would spoil a pleasant
landscape - Do not support.
Although this is not listed we understand that the site is scheduled for housing, this should
provide the extra housing that Needham requires. The car park should be retained, it is essential
Encroaching onto open countryside, visually prominent - Do not support.
Should NOT be a K.S.C. Most residents travel by road to work a distance away on very poor
roads. All the allocations should be taken away from Debenham and given to some Secondary
Villages that are BETTER served than Debenham - ie Stonham Aspal!
1. It has very good access on the B1078 compared to all the other primary villages excluding
Great Finborough and Hoxne. 2. There are many employment opportunities in every direction
from Ringshall; in Combs, Stowmarket, Needham Market, Great Bricett, Bildeston and
Wattisham. Of the primary villages probably only Great Finborough and Old Newton have more
opportunities for employment as close as Ringshall does . 3. The survey produced by Mid
Suffolk District Council shows that there are all the facilities at Ringshall including a school, post
This proposal sets out to provide benefits to the communities in three ways . Firstly with
affordable housing secondly with an additional overflow car park which can be used for the very
active village hall and also at peak times for the school. Thirdly there is also a proposal to give
more to the community by providing a tennis court next door to the village hall. This could be
made available for use by the local community and also in association with the village hall.
For the reasons stated about we believe that Ringshall should be included in Primary Village
section, not the Secondary Village section and also given a small allocation of land bid 2h for the
This is by far the most sensible site for development lending itself to blend in with existing area of
building. Looking at ordance survey map No TL96 SWW one can see the logic of the reasoning
behind my picking this as the most appropriate.
Completely the wrong site, fair too large for the size of Thurston village, the infrastructure3 could
not cope, even on a sloght flood plain, any development would alter the entire landscape of the
There are better sites in Thurston than this, roads would have to be widened, many mature trees
would need to be felled, many problems with drainage and water, these have capacity now so it
would major unheavel for residents (existing).
3a) Bramford.
3b) Scotts.
3c) Fitzgerald Road.
3d) I consider Scotts is the best area for any development as it has all the advantages of a
brownfield site. These should be used for development first.
3e) The Bramford Picnic Site could be used as a second football pitch where there are toilets
I am against any development on the Fitzgerald Site reasons:
1. Road access would be a hazard especially at the sharp bend at Vicarage Lane corner. Also
Fitzgerald Road is too narrow for any increased traffic due to cars parking.
2. Loss of open green fields, edge of which are badger setts.
a) Bramford
b) Sites NB - 5h & NB - 5e - Scotts, Paper Mill Lane.
c) Sites NB - 3h, 1h,1lr, NB - 4lr & X6ob
These are greenfield sites and development would adversely impact on views in and out of the
village and nearby special landscape areas. They are visual important open spaces and provide
There is no need for the football pitch, Bramford already has a large playing field and football
pitch which is subsidised by the Parish Council.
This is a brownfield and development of this derelect industrial site should improve the area and
enhance the setting of two listed buildings. The site has the potential to meet Bramford's
housing needs for the foreseeable future so that greenfield sites do not need to be built on.
This site may meet the criteria of a brownfield site. Presumably access would be via the
applicant's existing house plot. Brettenham Road would need considerable alteration to
accommodate the increase in traffic. The impact on the neighbouring properties will be
This is an area of prime farmland that is also one of the highest points of the village. Any
development would have an adverse visual impact from a long way away. The access would be
though Mill Closek land on to Mill Road which is unsuitable for any increase in use.
This is a greenfield site completely detached from the village and any development would be
visually intrusive on the open space surrounding the village.
Generally - any development of Buxhalll should be confined within the natural enclosed village
bounded by Mill Street, Rattlesdon Road and Brettenham Road (known locally as the
Cotton - larger development. Again local services, straight into utilities, affordable housing for
elderly or disabled central to Cotton for community support, local services, P.O., (11/2 miles),
doctors (1 mile) and bus services (300 yds).
Cotton - it is virtually surrounded by other dwellings. It has easy access straight on to alll utilities.
Can be constructed as a zero-carbon house to offset any footprint. Easy access (11/2 miles) of
Cotton - opposite 6 dwellings, easy access, close to utilities, 11/2 miles of local services - zero
a) Claydon.
b) More accessible from main road in Claydon/Barham. Less impact on surrounding existing
c) Rede Lane/Church Lane - this road is narrow and would struggle with an increase in traffic. It
is also already a 'rat-run'
As a greenfield site - would prefer to see development of a brownfield site. Land near the
graveyard should remain free from development.
NB. Appreciated the road shows - seeing plans and discussing with your colleagues.
We contend, on behalf of our clients who own the land shown, that the area lies in the heart of
the village of Creeting St Mary and is ideal for development within the village. We consider this
to be particularly so upon field number 4374 being adjacent and opposite other dwellings whilst
appreciating that field number 3565 is in close proximity of the Church and is probably less
suitable. We submit that field number 4374 or at least part of it would be ideal for selection as an
a) Debenham, Suffolk. (village).
b) X7ob
c) All these sites would make much more traffic into already very busy main Ipswich Road with
no pavement. Also the Kenton Road and Thorpe Lane are busy with lorries and big farm
machinery. Also Thorpe Lane is known to flood badly even after only a little rain.
Also in the village the parking is difficult at the moment and would become much worse. The
doctors are overstretched and the surgery has no room for extension. The schools have no
d) This site would be more appropriate because it is near the playing area and little school so
people could walk into village so the traffic should be less.
My only comment I wish to put forward is to remind everyone that the village floods. The flooding
is and always will be an issue. Now I'm sure these new homes will be fine but by building them
and concreting over more land then the villages homes, situated in the flooding areas, will suffer -
making these properties harder to sell and insure and causing great stress on the river and
I have great concerns for areas such as 2h & 2e Thorpe Lane, NB - 6h Kenton Road and X7ob
Aspall Road. Apart from rain having nowhere to go there is also no suitable access. If the roads
are made bigger then again - where does the water go??? I lived in Debenham for 27 years. I
now live in Oxfordshire and with the flooding that we have experienced here in the summer 2007,
I have concerns that people are thinking only of money than the facts that are climate changing
and are not being realistic to the problems more housing will cause. Also how can the
schools/sewage/parking cope with more pressure. DO PEOPLE NOT LEARN FROM OTHER
This proposed site is totally unsuitable for development for several reasons - road access,
surrounding area and the effect on the village of Debenham.
Kenton Road is a rural unclassified road that is used heavily by large vehicles to and from
Anchor Storage in Kenton, which makes it currently dangerous for other road users. A
development of 150-200 houses would conservatively add the potential for a further 300 cars
using the road. The road by the proposed development area has blind corners and would be an
'accident waiting to happen'. The junction at Maltings House is already a dangerous corner with
very limited visibility, and this junction would be used by all cars entering or leaving the proposed
A considerably amount of time and effort over the past few years has been spent developing the
woodland area, and has resulted in a beautiful recreational area for villagers. This area is
heavily used by walkers, joggers, dog walkers and would be spoilt by a large housing
development butting up to it. It would be a terrible loss for the current villagers not to have this
Although the village of Debenham is currently well serviced with shops, doctor surgery, primary
and high schools, etc., these services are at capacity. There is absolutely no way that any of the
services within the village could cope with an influx of further residents.
Debenham is a successful thriving village with a good sense of community feel. I personally feel
that trying to build on this success by building more houses will destroy the whole community feel
I refer to your map of Woolpit which shows applications for change of use of land in Woolpit. I
wish to register my objection to changing the use of land adjacent to Saffrons Close, Woolpit
In particular I object to the change of use of areas designated '4h' and 'LB - 9h & 9ob' on above
My reasons for objecting are two fold. Firstly, the essentially rural environs of Saffrons Close will
be lost if either of these two areas of land are used for housing. Saffrons Close will be
submerged as just another road in an urban estate. At the present time this Close enjoys a
premium rating in Woolpit because of its rural surrounds. It is relevant that the Close is
separated by Heath Road from the more intense development within the village of Woolpit, but a
housing scheme on this side of Heath Road would destroy that distinction. Heath Road forms
Secondly, the lake which lies half a mile east of here off Old Stowmarket Road will lose its
Least appropriate for future development. Is currently undeveloped farmland backing onto a
housing estate. To develop this site will drastically increase traffic through Eye and the existing
estate. The road leading into Eye is already heavily congested with traffic going to industrial
units on the outskirts of Eye. This site is also not relatively close to the town centre . If this site
was developed Eye would become a town "one side" of the main road running through it.
Most appropriate
This site lays between existing housing of Eye Airfield. Developing this site would make good
use of existing land as it is close to the town centre, health centre and work units based on the
Eye industrial estate. With the A140 close by access to this area shouldn't place too much
Needless to say before any further development the infrastructure would have to be substantially
ungraded ie roads, drainage etc. together with schools, doctors surgery, maybe a swimming
pool, supermarket. What about the flood plain issues that seem to affect planning applications in
Too remote and a blot on the countryside.
All these sites are 'linked' natural extensions
Should be used as a village car park.

Break out into surrounding countryside. Too far outside village and concerns over access.
Just the eastern half should be allocated for residential use. Concerned over access to Lion
Road due to traffic speeds.
Too large as well as breaking out into surrounding countryside.
Acceptable for affordable housing on part of site but not all. The remainder of this site and part
of 17h should be retained for a new school.
Whereas the Parochial Church Council is supportive of the intention to provide affordable
housing in the village, we also wish to see potential sites allocated - as site 4h previously was -
for the provision of a replacement primary school building in this expanding village.
There are three major sites and two smaller sites included and the Parish Council objects to all
with the following comments.
Although mainly outside the parish of Onehouse, the Parish Council has great fear, shared by
The Woodland Trust of housing abutting onto the ancient woodland of Northfield Wood.
The comments under 9h also refer to this site. In addition, the site is on an exposed incline and
the visual impact will be harmful to the appearance and character of the countryside. Land
drainage is also a crucial issue as there are already problems of flooding on the B1115 during
The current road system in the area already causes major safety concerns. Pedestrians to
Stowmarket have to walk a treacherous route along Forest Road, Starhouse Lane and Union
Road where there is no footway until you reach Chilton Meadows, and in part no verge. This is
already a very busy route where lorries access local business units. Any increase in traffic in
this area would be a serious concern for road safety . All traffic from the site wishing to travel in
an easterly direction towards Ipswich would have to use Union Road which is a rural road of
varying widths. There are already road safety issues due to cars parking along Onehouse Road
prior to the junction with Chilton Way. Currently all vehicles, including large lorries and
commercial vehicles would then have to travel through Stowmarket to access the ring road
before joining the A14 at the Tesco roundabout. This will cause severe congestion at
Councillors also expressed concern regarding infrastructure. Stowmarket has two Health
Centres which already find it hard to cope with the increasing population of Stowmarket with the
large development on the eastern side of the town. It is extremely difficult to find NHS dental
care and there could be a significant impact on schooling. Land drainage was also a concern.
Councillors believe that there is a possibility that land bid 9h could be split into three separate
land bids so that only the area closest to the A14 need be included in the preferred options. This
should provide sufficient land to meet the needs for future development in Mid Suffolk up to 2025
There is major concern regarding the inclusion of this area as a land bid.Although the site is in
the parish of Onehouse, this is the only sports field available to residents of Stowmarket. The
Government is encouraging participation in sport to impact on the obesity crisis. Any loss of the
This is outside the current Settlement Boundary of Onehouse and development would be
incongruous in the countryside.
Although outside the current Settlement Boundary, Onehouse Parish Council has no objection to
this bid, as it is Brownfield site.
Would not support. Ribbon development, greenfield land, open countryside, ridge of hill forms
natural geographic end to the Lion Barn Industrial Estate.

H.G.V. parking. Would support - good access on to A14.

Do not support would lead to coalescence with Badley.
Would not support this amount of additional greenfield insufficient infrastructure and capacity (ie
sewerage) housing.

Would not support. This is a special landscape area.

Would not support . Site does not relate to existing built up area. No access visually prominent.
Should be a greater amount of employment uses to compensate for loss on other areas, should
be no commercial uses - detrimental to vitality and viability of the towncentre, should be more
formal recreational space. Number of houses should be reduced to accommodate the above

Would not support coalescence of settlements.
Would not support, no, or poor access, ancient hedgerows special landscape area, prominent in
the landscape.
Would not support. Impact on local amenity next to Mill Stream, detrimental to conservation
area, very visible from Hawksmill and Mill Stream.
Would not support. Visually prominent, enroachment into countryside. (objections to 11sb and
12h could only be overcome by very good design).
Is not listed, but planning officers are including a provision of approx. 130 houses on the
brownfield site in the table on page 8 of "Site Specific Allocations" booklet. It is imperative the
"Chapel " car park is retained, as a public car park here for the vitality and viability of the town
centre. Also there needs to be shops as well as houses, on this town centre site, again for the
Would not support. Totally unsustainable, ribbon development, open countyside. A strict H.G.V.
ban is being imposed on Needham Market , this would make a dustbin lorry depot at this site
unworkable. Great Blakenham a better proposition.
This site is not appropriate for future development as: 1. The village is very much a
'Countryside Village' with no local employment , education or healthcare facilities. There is no
food shop/store, post office or school in the village, and no access to such facilities by foot/cycle.
There is only an infrequent bus service to Stowmarket and Bury St Edmunds and no access to
other public transport. Development in the village would therefore not be Sustainable and would
be contrary to Development Policies CS1, 2 & 8 of the MSDC Core Strategy. 2. Any
development at this site (especially affordable housing) would increase the need and tendency
 3. This is a greenfield site, remote from the heart of the village and the proposed extension of
the SB (to allow development) would remove productive agricultural land, intrude into the
countryside and have an irreversible environmental impact. It would establish a dangerous
precedent for potential ribbon development on other agricultural land along the Rattlesden Road.
4. I understand that there is no evidence of housing need and previous planning applications for
this site have been rejected.
5. If, in the future, it can be proved that there is a real need for additional housing in the village,
and this need is felt to override the negative impacts covered in Comments 1, 2 and 3 above,
development should be confined within the heart of the existing village. This is within the area
bounded by Mill Road, Brettenham Road and the Finborough Road which contains suitable open
This site is not appropriate for future development as: 1. The village is very much a
'Countryside Village' with no local employment , education or healthcare facilities. There is no
food shop/store, post office or school in the village, and no access to such facilities by foot/cycle.
There is only an infrequent bus service to Stowmarket and Bury St Edmunds and no access to
other public transport. Development in the village would therefore not be Sustainable and would
be contrary to Development Policies CS1, 2 & 8 of the MSDC Core Strategy. 2. Any
development at this site (especially affordable housing) would increase the need and tendency
 3. This is a greenfield site, remote from the heart of the village and the proposed extension of
the SB (to allow development) would remove productive agricultural land, intrude into the
countryside and have an irreversible environmental impact. It would establish a dangerous
precedent for potential ribbon development on other agricultural land along the Rattlesden Road.
4. I understand that there is no evidence of housing need and previous planning applications for
this site have been rejected
5. If, in the future, it can be proved that there is a real need for additional housing in the village,
and this need is felt to override the negative impacts covered in Comments 1, 2 and 3 above,
development should be confined within the heart of the existing village. This is within the area
bounded by Mill Road, Brettenham Road and the Finborough Road which contains suitable open
6. This is also a green field site where development would intrude into the countryside and have
a negative impact on local watercourses. 7. Development of this current natural grassland site
would remove a visually important open space, establish a precedent for ribbon development
and have irreversible negative ecological and enviromental impact. The North end of the
proposed site (beyond the NE boundary with Leeks Cottage) is regularly used as a refuge/resting
8. Access to this site is from the Rattlesden Road (which is a single track road with passing
places) close to the blind junction with Mill Road and a sharp bend. Development of anything
more than a single family dwelling would result in severe traffic access/egress problems.
Appropriate. Subject to suitable traffic management.
Large Land Bids outside the current village envelope capable of incorporating several hundred
residential properties. The views of residents as expressed in our Parish Plan (2005), were
overwhelmingly opposed to development in excess of 12 units. At the public exhibition to
engage residents in the consideration of the Site Specific Allocations, held in Stowupland on the
3 October 2007, this view was strongly endorsed. A copy of residents' views given at that
Residents overwhelmingly considered that there are significant adverse impacts from such large-
scale developments outside the village envelope, particularly in respect of increased traffic
through the village.The roads most affected by this development would be: - Church road
(A1120) already a busy road with access off it to most village amenities including 3 schools.
Safety concerns over cyclists and children walking to the schools on narrow footpaths. - Thorney
Green Road - Unclassified road with no footpath. Close proximity to The Green; a village
recreational area.- New Road - Unclassified narrow road with no footpath, which runs through
Gipping Road - Unclassified road with no footpaths. Residential properties very close to the
road. - Rendall Lane - Single land road with passing places. - Unclassified road, already
experiencing problems with vehicles using the road as a short cut to the A140. There is little or
no scope to use traditional methods to reduce the risk of accidents and the effects of HGV traffic
The present sewerage system is already over capacity, overflowing onto the A1120 from time to
time adjacent to the Primary school. Any further development on this scale would necessitate
substantial upgrading of the current infrastructure. The piecemeal development of these sites
subject to the above mentioned constraints, without any measures to reduce these impacts,
would be the 'worst of all possible worlds'. If the MSDC allocation of residential housing units on
Greenfield sites is spread over a number of Key Service Centres (and this is the most likely
outcome) the adverse impacts of development would be felt for many years before any
significant infrastructure improvements are implemented. Even then it is likely that any attempts
In particular we should point out that there is a substantial development of 32 units at present
under construction in Reeds Way, and this is a significant contribution to MSDC development on
Greenfield sites. Our Parish Plan indicated that there may be need for a scheme to provide
affordable housing to enable existing Stowupland residents to remain in the village, and we will
be carrying out a Local Housing Needs Survey on the next few months to establish the level of
need. There is also concern about the possible increase in traffic through the village, in
particular Saxham Street and Church Road (A1120), if other developments are approved to the
Appropriate. Suitable, subject to suitable traffic management and protection for residents in Mill
Street, particularly Orchard Cottage, in respect of noise and light pollution.
Most inappropriate. A long way outside the village envelope. Only access appears to be a
narrow, single track country lane (Mill Street). Loss of residential amenities for existing residents;
noise and light pollution and an increase in traffic with a dangerous access onto the B1115.
Believe there to be Planning Policy Constraints. Intrusion into the countryside. Because of the
close proximity of recent developments on the Stowmarket side of the A14 would lead to the
coalescence of Stowupland and Stowmarket, and the loss of the green belt separating
Debenham's infrastructure cannot cope with anymore residential development . 1. Services
barely cope now with increase population eg. Doctors Surgery completely overstretched now for
appointments and parking . 2. Both schools would need to expand again a big problem with
parking residents around the schoo are subjected to abuse trying to get to their own properties.
3. Law and Order is practically none existent with the station shut. 4. Sewerage works can't
cope now with heavy rain, manholes lift and raw sewerage pours out Low Road and the other
end of the village near primary school and the Butts area. 5. Planners must be aware of existing
flood plains in Debenham with all this extra developments its going to cause big problems for
surface water, also the roads from every entrance into the village and parking are already a big
Council confirms its view that, if it was considered that some development was necessary in the
town, this should take place in the areas 3h, land adjacent to Hill House Farm/Anderson Close
and 4h adjacent to Platten Close in the first instance.
This area is a green field site and a special landscape area in the Barking Valley. There is no
access to the site. It is not good planning to place residential development to close to an
industrial site. Any development here would suffer from dust and noise problems and with the
present environmental rules could result in complaints about the quarry thus causing it to curtail
Development should not be permitted here as this land forms a break between Needham Market
and Badley and growth here would add to the ribbon development between Needham Market
and Stowmarket. The land is also of significance historically, being the site of a burial ground for
Although this site is outside the settlement boundary Council considers it to be one area where
some development could take place. As it adjoins a development of expensive housing at Hill
House Farm a blend of different cost housing would be most effective.
If it is proved that more housing is needed in the town Council would accept some development
in this area. It would, however, wish to see development at 3h take preference over 4h.
Industrial development would be acceptable provided it is confined to the present confines of the
quarry and is developed as the quarry becomes worked out.
No development would be acceptable at any time.
There should not be any development here. The land is currently outside the settlement
boundary, is an area of special landscape and there are flood plain issues.
Council would not accept development in this area as it would constitute substantial development
which the services and infrastructure of the town could not sustain.
a) Debenham Village.
c) These sites would have to go out into Ipswich Road, Thorpe Lane and Kenton Road. To add
to the traffic of lorries and farm machinery, people would have to drive as no pavements are
present. Deben Rise has a problem of water coming off the fields making our gardens saturated
b) Closest to all amenities, school and village recreation already close by.
d) Rises away from the main Eye Road making easy access to schools and village which
already has mains services available.
The Parish Council is therefore against any extensions to the settlement boundaries within
Woolpit and opposes all the land bids for the following reasons:
The Parish Council feels that there should be additions to the current Visually Important Open
Spaces. These are the old allotment area along Rags Lane, land adjacent to Elmswell Road at
the entrance to the village, Swan Lake and Warren Lane as virtually suggested by the Planning
Some consideration should be given to redrawing the settlement boundary along Warren Lane
so that it excludes the front gardens.
This is a Special Landscape Area and should not be shown as a site providing employment.
There are also considerable problems with access to the site.
Councillors oppose the inclusion, as this would set a precedent for further development of the
adjacent fields for which no case can be made.
Councillors can see no reason to create a settlement boundary along Old Stowmarket Road.
The Parish Council feels that the settlement boundary is correctly sited at the crossroads. A
buffer of land is needed here to preserve the character of the village. In 1995 the Local Plan
Inspector said that designation of a settlement boundary along Old Stowmarket Road would
In refusing a bid to include this site in the 1995 Local Plan, the Inspector said: "Any development
to this area would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside on the edge of
the village". It would also set a precedent for the two other fields off Drinkstone Road to be
included in the settlement boundary. It would also create significant traffic problems, as all
vehicles would have to travel through the centre of the village and the roads are too narrow to
The area intrudes into a rural landscape and any development would set a precedent for further
fields towards the boundary of the A14 to be included. Every vehicle would need to access the
Bury Road causing major congestion in the area. Development in this area would involve a
significant number of properties with detrimental effect to the current infrastructure, the school
and Heath Centre would be unable to cope with the increased capacity required.
Any development here would be catastrophic to the character of Woopit. The current road
system could not take the extra traffic and this would also be a major burden at the crossroads
already dangerous and likely to be affected by increased volume of traffic from the improved
Any development on the area adjacent to Bury Road would totally change the character of the
village. The visual impact would be enormous and both main entries to Woolpit would be
industrial. When Woolpit Business Park was developed the bund was purpose built to screen
the site and any development between the bund and Bury Road would be extremely detrimental.
Planning permission has already been granted for the rear of the site and Parish Council feels
that there is no need to alter the settlement boundary because of this. It is also in close proximity
to a Special Landscape Area and a buffer of land should be kept between the industrial
Access to the site is a major concern. Councillors felt access would either have to be via Steeles
Road, which is already heavily congested, or on to the road at a bend which is hazardous. Any
traffic would need to travel along Green Road exacerbating the current traffic problems there.
The area is already quite densely populated but Councillors felt that any development here would
be less harmful than in other areas of the village but are still opposed to the inclusion in the
settlement boundary. There is also concern regarding current land levels between the field and
Further development of the area would cause traffic problems both with lorries and employees'
vehicles (which are already causing safety problems with employee parking on Old Stowmarket
Road). This would be detrimental to the owners of residential properties nearby.
It is noted that a footpath runs across the field. The Mid Suffolk Local Plan Inspector ruled
in1995 that to include land between Heath Road and Roman Fields would be significant intrusion
into the countryside and extend the built up area of the village.
The car boot site is actually in Drinkstone (although it is currently subject to a recommendation of
a parish boundary change) but affects the village of Woolpit considerably. Planning consent has
been obtained for the land to be used for a car boot site and as such is already a source of
congestion and annoyance within and around the village. Any redesignation would open up
The environmental impact on the village would be unacceptable. There will be additional
problems of light pollution and noise with a 24 hour business so close to houses; major
problems, particularly with night-time noise, already exist with the current site. The impact to
adjoining residential properties would be unacceptable. The visual effect of the existing
uncontrollable stacks of containers is appalling and any increase to this would be intolerable.
This again would be an intrusion into the countryside and extend the built up area of the village.
Development of this area would change the look and nature of the entrance to the village. Any
development would adversely affect the setting of an Ancient Monument and have a detrimental
effect on a Visually Important Open Space. The area also includes part of the conservation area
and any new development would be considered extremely detrimental.
Councillors are extremely concerned regarding the inclusion of this site which a large proportion
would appear to cover area already developed by O J Jewers grain store. This would have a
detrimental impact on the approach to the village and there are grave concerns regarding traffic
Councillors oppose the inclusion as it would be an intrusion into the open countryside.
Councillors are totally opposed to the inclusion of this bid. There are already problems regarding
traffic movement from the café nearby as the lorry drivers use the narrow roads through Wood
Road, Borley Green and Woolpit village to regain access to the westbound A14. On completion
of the Haughley bends improvement, westbound vehicles leaving this proposed site should rejoin
the A14 at the new Tothill interchange. However, because of the distance involved there will be
vehicles which will take the shorter route through Woolpit. Any additional facilities will
The creation of such a substantial lorry park and associated facilities on this site will have an
enormously damaging visual impact on the area. Not least, it will give users of the A14 the
impression that they are travelling through an industrial landscape rather than a rural county.
Such a facility, which is mainly intended for vehicles going to the port of Felixstowe, should be
sited at Stowmarket, Ipswich or Felixstowe where many lorry sites already exist and an additional
The additional traffic generated would be detrimental as the roads are too narrow to permit
satisfactory movement.
Development of this area would change the look and nature of the village and adversely affect
the setting of the sports field. There are already problems at the junction with Bury Road, which
in itself is a dangerous road as it is the main exit from Woolpit onto the A14. The area also
includes part of the conservation area and any new development would be considered extremely
The following comments relate to the village of Rattlesden. The sites that Rattlesden Parish
Council consider to be most suitable for development are: These sites are not listed in any order
of preference. With the exception of NB - 17h they are all considered equally suitable. NB - 17h
is considered to be less suitable because of the access difficulities.
These sites are also too large for the scale of the village. Building on the side of the hill would
dominate the houses in the valley and deprive the village of important views and open
countryside. Many of the houses in front of the sites are listed buildings and would be adversely
Development on the hillside could increase the already significant risk of flooding in the centre of
Access would be via Woolpit Hill, which has no footpath for pedestrians and is not suitable for
large volumes of increased vehicle traffic. Site NB - 18h straddles School Lane, which is the site
of the local school and is completely unsuitable for any additional vehicle traffic.
This site would allow development on a scale completely out of proportion to the rest of the
village. Development would destroy important views across open countryside to and from the
conservation area, and particularly the church. It would also encroach on open countryside.
Roads adjoining the site are not suitable for the sort of volume of traffic that night be generated.
Building on the site would create a ribbon-style of development and would mean that the
settlements of the valley and Poy Street Green (currently separate) would inevitably coalesce.
Deveopment on the hillside could increase the already significant risk of flooding in the centre of
This site is also so large that it would allow development of a scale that would be out of
proportion to the rest of the village. Deveopment would encroach on open countryside and
would impact on two listed buildings, Brook Farm and Barkers Farm.
The site is well away from the centre of the village and has no amenities within easy walking
distance. Development there would result in pedestrians (particularly children going to school)
being required to use a road that has no footpath and well-used by through traffic.
This site is bisected by a footpath and any building there would encroach onto open countryside.
It would also dominate the houses below, spoiling the conservation area and having an adverse
impact on a listed building (Manor Cottage).
This site is also too far from the centre of the village (see comments on 2sb & 2h above) and
could adversely impact on Brook Farm (a listed building).
With the exception of site NB - 17h, the sites are outside the conservation area of the village and
development would extend existing housing lines, without intruding into the countryside. The
areas are well-suited to lower-cost, smaller houses, for which there is a significant demand in the
village, rather than large, executive-style houses, which have featured prominently in new builds
The areas selected are also well away from any risk of flooding (which is a problem in the valley).
None of the sites selected would have a significant effect on the listed building in the village.
There is a problem with vehicle access to site NB - 17h, but, if access can be obtained through
St Nicholas Close, the Parish Council believes that this site might be used to provide a small
amount of additional housing, extending the building from St Nicholas Close to Rising Sun Hill.
This plot does not appear to be large enough to be viable. Building there would result in more
traffic on School Lane, which would be a hazard to young children travelling to school on foot.
With the exception of the access question for site NB - 17h, all the proposed sites offer good
vehicle and pedestrian access to centre of the village and are close to the bus route.
The sites that Rattlesden Parish Council considers to be the least suitable for development are:
We write to object to the application for the change of use of land in Fitzgerald Road, Bramford.
Having lived in Fitzgerald Road for 37 years would ask you to note the following objections.
As a member of the RSPB we are concerned as to the loss of wildlife this would have - skylarks,
reed buntings, linnets, goldfinches, 3 pairs of green woodpeckers, kestrel, sparrowhawk, a pair
of little owls, badger sett and a fox.
The footpaths and wildlife are enjoyed by many walkers each day at least a dozen are out
walking. With the development of the Old Fisons Site proposed surely it's not necessary to use

a) Bramford, b) NB - 5h & NB - 5e, c) NB - 3h, NB - 4lr, 1h, 1lr & X60b
d) Greenfield sites - development would be contrary to the Parish Plan. Destroys views into and
out of village (see Parish Plan).
d) Brownfield site currently with ugly listed industrial buildings. This is in accordance with Parish
Plan.
d) Greenfield site - development would be contrary to the Parish Plan. Large scale development
too near to NB - 5h.
These sites are considered the most appropriate because they lie west of the railway line and all
are close to the services which Bacton has to offer and pedestrian access to these services is
These sites along the B1113 road east of the railway line are considered the least suitable for
selection because they are furthest from the services in Bacton and can only be accessed via the
railway bridge which has two way traffic flow and no provision for pedestrians making it
hazardous for people on foot especially those with children, prams, dogs, etc., to access the
These sites are considered the least appropriate for selection because, although they abut the
settlement boundary of Bacton, they are situated in the Parish of Cotton (a non-sustainable
village). Should they be considered for selection this will led to the settlement boundary of
Bacton expanding into the Parish of Cotton and will lead to the appearance of strip development.
Also these sites lie to the east of the railway line which makes access to the services in Bacton
difficult because of the railway bridge which has no pedestrian provision to the centre of Bacton

Approve. The Parish Council recommends that all other sites be refused.
Land east of Century Road is inappropriate as access to Victoria Hill from Century Road is
already quite busy. If 2h is further developed with access onto Victoria Hill a busy crossroads will
be the result. Similarly Tuffs Road would probably be extended and would become very busy.
These should not be taken up as this starts to extend Eye by ribbon development along the
B1077.
Preferred site for expansion with new housing as access could possibly be obtained to Victoria
Hill and Castleton Way.
Without demolishing 81a Brome Avenue there appears to be no access to this proposed site.
Possibly the farm track by Queensgate estate could be used but, again, the access to Victoria
Hill from Century Road would be very busy.
The housing targets for Bramford can be met on brown field sites in the village. Previous
Planning Applications for housing on this site have been refused, eg Application 1291/02, and
the reasons for refusal remain valid. Local opposition was high with about 100 written
protests.The site is green field land, whereas Government policy is to build on brown field land
where available. This is also policy of the Ipswich Area (IPA) and the Bramford Parish Plan.
Development would have a detrimental impact on: 1. the nearby Special Landscape Area. 2.
an undesignated nevertheless Visually Important Open Space, which is the "prominent visible
location" and the "very open southern edge of Bramford" with the "rural character and
appearance of the area as a whole", as given in the last Planning Refusal for this site. 3. the
The housing targets for Bramford can be met on brown field sites in the village. Previous
Planning Applications for housing on this site have been refused, eg Application 1291/02, and
the reasons for refusal remain valid. Local opposition was high with about 100 written
protests.The site is green field land, whereas Government policy is to build on brown field land
where available. This is also policy of the Ipswich Area (IPA) and the Bramford Parish Plan.
Development would have a detrimental impact on: 1. the nearby Special Landscape Area. 2.
an undesignated nevertheless Visually Important Open Space, which is the "prominent visible
location" and the "very open southern edge of Bramford" with the "rural character and
The site area is close to water meadows, and because development causes the land to become
impermeable, additional run-off of water from the site will affect the capacity of the water
meadows which are already flooded with standing water from time to time. Safe road access to
the site cannot be provided because of its proximity to a bend where there is substandard
forward visibility. Traffic slowing, turning, entering and leaving the site would cause danger .
The field contains a large variety of wild bird life (including lapwing and sky lark) as well as
mammals and reptiles. These are commonly observed by the many who use the public footpath
regularly. Development on this field would intrude into the countryside. Development would
Development would destroy the wildlife habitat of the skylarks that nest yearly in the field.
Development would remove the nearest open space on the west of the village, which an amenity
currently enjoyed and appreciated by residents of the village, and also by people from Ipswich. It
is the first major open space to the west of Ipswich for many people. The defining view into the
village, which includes the Listed building and the Church spire, would be obsecured and the
long view out of the village from the bend in the road would be lost. (See Parish Plan map in
Noise from inhabitants, and artificial light on what is now a field, would adversely affect amenity.
The additional traffic generation at this end of the village would burden two dangerous junctions:
one at Loraine Way, and one at Vicarage Lane. It would also exacerbate traffic problems on
Fitzgerald Road where cars delivering and collecting schoolchildren park in the morning and
afternoon on every school day. Development of this field for housing would not improve the site
in any way at all. There is insufficient open space between the south of Bramford and Ipswich
This small site is adjacent to other small groups of housing. Although it cannot, therefore,
address many housing needs it would fit in with the the existing housing spread at this end of the
village. Brownfield. Too small for any significant visual impact. Traffic access is a problem at
this very busy junction. The site would presumably have to rely on access across neighbouring
The site area is adjacent to water meadows, and because development causes the land to
become impermeable, additional run-off of water from the site will affect the capacity of the water
meadows which are already flooded with standing water from time to time. Safe road access to
the site cannot be provided because of its proximity to a bend where there is substandard
forward visibility. Traffic slowing, turning, entering and leaving the site would cause danger .
The field contains a large variety of wild bird life (including lapwing and sky lark) as well as
mammals and reptiles. These are commonly observed by the many who use the public footpath
regularly. Development on this field would intrude into the countryside. Development would
Development would have a detrimental visual impact on an established mixed native hedge of
some considerable length whoch forms the boundary of the Listed building. Development would
destroy the wildlife habitat of the skylarks which nest yearly in the field. Development would
remove the nearest open space on the west of the village, which an amenity currently enjoyed
and appreciated by residents of the village, and also by people from Ipswich. It is the first major
open space to the west of Ipswich for many people. The public footpath which crosses site NB
3h is an amenity enjoyed by very many people every day. To build straddling the footpath, or to
divert the footpath, would seriously detract from the public enjoyment of their right of way here.
The defining view into the village, which includes the Listed building and the Church spire, would
Noise from inhabitants, and artificial light on what is now a field, would adversely affect amenity.
The additional traffic generation at this end of the village would burden two dangerous junctions:
one at Loraine Way, and one at Vicarage Lane. It would also exacerbate traffic problems on
Fitzgerald Road where cars delivering and collecting schoolchildren park in the morning and
afternoon on every school day. Development of this field for housing would not improve the site
in any way at all. There is insufficient open space between the south of Bramford and Ipswich
Sites are jointly considered least appropriate for development as brown field sites are the
preferred option of our Parish Plan and these are all green field sites.
There is already a football pitch plus a smaller one maintained by the Bramford Playing Field
charitable trust and supported financially by the Parish Council.We consider there is no need for
a further pitch for purely private use. A football pitch is not viable as it could not exist without
changing facilities and toilets, vehicle access, and car parking. There is a major service main
passing under the site parallel to Fitzgerald Road, and a covenant in the property deeds prevents
the owner from building over the service main. Buildings serving the football pitch would
therefore have to be constructed closer to the village. This would be a precedent for building on
the field, to which we object. Previous Planning Applications for housing on other sites, along
The site is green field land, whereas Government policy is to build on brown field land where
available. This is also the policy of the Ipswich Policy Area (IPA) and the Bramford Parish Plan.
Development would have a detrimental impact on: 1. the nearby Special Landscape Area. 2.
an undesignated nevertheless Visually Important Open Space, which is the "prominent visible
location" and the "very open southern edge of Bramford" with the "rural character and
The field contains a large variety of wild bird life (including lapwings and sky lark) as well as
mammals and reptiles. These are commonly observed by the many who use the public footpath
regularly. There would be a danger to passing pedestrians and cars unless a visually
unattractive high screen was erected. Access to the site would be near a very busy junction with
the B.1113 that is frequently blocked by vehicles collecting children from the nearby school.
Development on this field would intrude into the countryside. Development would bring closer
Development would destroy the wildlife habitat of the skylarks that nest yearly in the field.
Development would remove the nearest open space on the west of the village, which an amenity
currently enjoyed and appreciated by residents of the village, and also by people from Ipswich. It
is the first major open space to the west of Ipswich for many people. The defining view into the
village, which includes the Listed building and the Church spire, would be obsecured and the
long view out of the village from the bend in the road would be lost. (See Parish Plan map in
Noise from users, and artificial light on what is now a field, would adversely affect amenity. The
additional traffic generation at this end of the village would burden two dangerous junctions: one
at Loraine Way, and one at Vicarage Lane. It would also exacerbate traffic problems on
Fitzgerald Road where cars delivering and collecting schoolchildren park in the morning and
afternoon on every school day. Development of this field would not improve the site in any way
Site is considered the most appropriate as brown field sites are the preferred option of our Parish
Plan.
Is brown field and promises to improve a derelict former industrial site. NB 3h 1h/1lr NB 4LR
and X6ob are green field sites and their development would have serious adverse effects on the
village enviroment. Many residents from Bramford attended the Public Meeting at Claydon
Village Hall on 3 December 2007, and obliterated with red dots the complete site covered by
Land Bids 1h/1lr, NB 3h and NB 4lr, demonstrating the extent of public opposition to
development on the Fitzgerald Road field. Please see below for fuller comments categorized by
These two applications are not separately identifiable by reference. The part of the former Scotts
factory site to the East of the railway line is a brownfield site with the potential to provide some
400 dwellings from the regional target in the Ipswich policy area, whilst removing a current
eyesore. This is in accord with the Bramford Parish Plan. The part to the West of the railway
line is adjacent to the River Gipping, is low lying and unsuitable for development other than as an
amenity for the rest of the site. Lack of development of this site could result in deterioration of
Listed buildings and dereliction of the other buildings on the site. This development has plenty of
The brown field site is located in one of the three distinct parts of Bramford, each of whoch has a
different character. The site is a major part of the built-up area of the Paper Mill Lane area of the
village. The site can be linked to the village by footpaths and cycle tracks and , if there is a bus
service as proposed by the developer, the site will be accessible to services, employment, shops
and schools as avaiable in the main village a mile away. Restoration of the Listed Buildings on
the site would result in amenity improvement. This would require capital from development of the
rest of the site East of the Railway. Development of the land to the West would impair Special
There is a flood risk on the western part of the site but the eastern part if elevated. The
developers claim to be knowledgeable about the ecology and the contaminated land. Access
and traffic are a major issue, and we would expect, that if this development is to proceed.
positive improvements to road safety and to the traffic problems on Paper Mill Lane will be
included as part of the development. Significant problems are anticipated by nearby residents.
Although the proposal is for a substantial number of dwellings, the site is adjacent to a sparsely
developed part of Bramford so does not constitute urban sprawl from Ipswich.The employment
which this site used to provide came to an end many years ago. If the development includes
live/work units and shops as proposed, some employment will be provided where none now
exists. A very large increase in traffic along a narrow lane would be inevitable and must be
sorted out before any planning is approved. If the developers form the country park linking the
development to the village, there should be a beneficial effect on the environment including
The proposed development would enhance the character of the Paper Mill Lane area of the
village because of the reduction of eyesores and the saving and restoration/adaptation of
historically important Listed Buildings. There will be minimal impact on residential amenity
(noise, light, pollution, overlooking) because there is only a small number of residential properties
in the near vicinity. Overall, development of this site would improve the site compared to its
We were told last year that this application had been withdrawn and it was not included in our
letter to all Bramford residents. It is at the same end of the village as site NB 5h and NB 5e and
together they would constitute too big an increase in one part of the village. The housing targets
for Bramford can be met on brown field sites in the village. The site is green field land, whereas
Government policy is to build on brown field land where available. This is also the policy of the
Development would have a detrimental impact on : 1. The included and nearby Special
Landscape Area; 2. A strip of designated common land. The site area is adjacent to and partly
formed of water meadows, and because development causes the land to become impermeable,
additional run-off of water from the site will affect the capacity of the water meadows which are
already flooded with standing water from time to time. Development on this field would intrude
into the countryside. Development would remove the nearest open space to the North of the
village. Noise from inhabitants, and artificial light on what is now a field, would adversely affect
Land adjacent and at the top of Poplar Hill Stowmarket. This land bid should be refused. This
site has panoramic views of rural suffolk and includes the stunning view of Combs Chuch settled
in the valley. The last site of natural beauty situated on the outskirts of Stowmarket, a favourite
area for walkers. It is outside the settlement boundary and should remain farm land for future
The Parish Council supports landbids for small-scale development of areas. That are outside,
but adjacent to, the settlement boundary for the provision of intermediate housing, such
development would help to limit the drift of young adults away from the village and enable young
families to live there, thus maintaining the viability of the primary school. The existence of a large
local employer in the parish also supports the need of the provision of small 'starter homes'. The
Parish Council has the support of District Councillor Charles Tilbury in requesting an exception to
Extends the village boundary with ribbon development and is residential only, should be replaced
with the following proposed site.
The site is marked on the enclosed village development map. It is located in the middle of the
village, abutting the settlement boundary and existing housing on three sides. The proposal is
for a development of affordable and some residential housing plus open/amenity space. The site
is located between Chapel Lane and the allotment gardens abutting the main road and on the
main Sudbury to Ipswich bus route. The site provides easy access to existing play areas and the
Good site, allow access to council land behind for new affordable housing.
Good site - Good road access and close to medical centre.
Development outside of main village shape, and no. of dwellings would cause major traffic
conjestion through Mill Road as unsuitable width and dangerous junction at 'Fleece Pub' corner.
Least appropriate - 1. Village development - larger school - larger area imposing on playing field
which needs to develop also for larger community and only way is to keep land for more school
recreation and also more playing field development. Also Mill Road is not suitable for increased
volumes of cars the development would attract. Road junction and width of road is dangerous.
Good site - 'Brownfield' plus unlikely to create more village traffic as Stowmarket/A140 route that
side with 8h close to school and less lorry damage to village houses.
Good site - Hide development off road behind - better screened.
All these sites are outside the current development and encroach on the countryside so valued
by current residents/visitors. The road network can barely cope at present and will not support
further development. Most of these areas are either liable to flooding in an historic and beautiful
village centre. Parking is already a problem in the village especially around the schools where at
times it is dangerous. The village still has to absorb the unfinished Meadows and Henry Street
developments. Whilst both schools are full and the health service struggling. There should be a
Would be suitable as infill between existing domestic buildings providing a footpath could like to
Would be acceptable for High School playing field.
Has good access, balances the village and is well situated for Health Centre.
Once again this would seem an inappropriate site due to the congestion that would be caused in
Mill Road. The junction with "The Fleece Public House" is a genuine blind spot and potentially
dangerous/hazardous to all road users including pedestrians. Also this development unbalances
Is least appropriate - Mill Road is a narrow country lane which could not cope with an increase of
car traffic. Furthermore there are no pavements and no potential space to create.
Appear to be appropriate for development - both are served by larger/wider roads and give
balance to the feel of the village. 1h also allows access to existing council land for affordable
Appear to be appropriate sites as there would be minimal increase in traffic into the village whilst
also reducing lorry pollution and traffic to the village.
Would have minimal impact on village as would 11 e and 13 sb
This countryside land is adjacent to the Combs-Battisford parish boundary; in the parish of
Combs and is some 4 miles from Stowmarket. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside
Village and is approximately 4 miles from Stowmarket. Combs is currently classified as a
Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilites to justify even this low level classification.
The residential population of Combs must travel to Stowmarket or beyond for most of their
personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from Combs and for all
other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill (C443). This
road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat runs" through
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
This countryside land is adjacent to the Combs-Battisford parish boundary; in the parish of
Combs and is some 4 miles from Stowmarket. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside
Village and is approximately 4 miles from Stowmarket. Combs is currently classified as a
Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilites to justify even this low level classification.
The residential population of Combs must travel to Stowmarket or beyond for most of their
personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from Combs and for all
other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill (C443). This
road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat runs" through
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
This countryside land is adjacent to the Combs-Battisford parish boundary; in the parish of
Combs and is some 4 miles from Stowmarket. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside
Village and is approximately 4 miles from Stowmarket. Combs is currently classified as a
Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilites to justify even this low level classification.
The residential population of Combs must travel to Stowmarket or beyond for most of their
personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from Combs and for all
other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill (C443). This
road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat runs" through
This land is in the Ringshall (or Wattisham?) parish countryside and is approximately 5 miles
from Stowmarket. The residential population in this locality must travel to Stowmarklet or beyond
for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from
Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill
(C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat
runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its safety or
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
housing development. This land is adjacent to the Battisford Tye Settlement Boundary and in
the parish of Battisford. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside Village and the land is
This land is in the Ringshall (or Wattisham?) parish countryside and is approximately 5 miles
from Stowmarket. The residential population in this locality must travel to Stowmarklet or beyond
for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from
Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill
(C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat
runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its safety or
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
housing development. This land is adjacent to the Battisford Tye Settlement Boundary and in
the parish of Battisford. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside Village and the land is
This land is adjacent to the Battisford Tye Settlement Boundary and in the parish of Battisford.
Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside Village and the land is approximately 4 miles from
This countryside land is adjacent to the Combs-Battisford parish boundary; in the parish of
Combs and is some 4 miles from Stowmarket. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside
Village and is approximately 4 miles from Stowmarket. Combs is currently classified as a
Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilites to justify even this low level classification.
The residential population of Combs must travel to Stowmarket or beyond for most of their
personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from Combs and for all
other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill (C443). This
road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat runs" through
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
This land is in the Battisford parish countryside.This land is adjacent to the Battisford Tye
Settlement Boundary and in the parish of Battisford. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside
Village and the land is approximately 4 miles from Stowmarket.
This land is in the Ringshall (or Wattisham?) parish countryside and is approximately 5 miles
from Stowmarket. The residential population in this locality must travel to Stowmarklet or beyond
for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from
Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill
(C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat
runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its safety or
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
housing development. This land is adjacent to the Battisford Tye Settlement Boundary and in
the parish of Battisford. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside Village and the land is
This land is in the Ringshall (or Wattisham?) parish countryside and is approximately 5 miles
from Stowmarket. The residential population in this locality must travel to Stowmarklet or beyond
for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from
Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill
(C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat
runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its safety or
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
housing development. This land is adjacent to the Battisford Tye Settlement Boundary and in
the parish of Battisford. Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside Village and the land is
This land is adjacent to the Battisford Tye Settlement Boundary and in the parish of Battisford.
Battisford Tye is classified as a Countryside Village and the land is approximately 4 miles from
Stowmarket. The residential population of Battisford Tye must travel to Stowmarket or beyond
for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and from
Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via Poplar Hill
(C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat
This land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing would be contrary to
the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy. There is no
demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be allocated for
Combs is currently classified as a Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilities to justify
even this low level classification. Combs' residential population must travel to Stowmarket or
beyond for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and
from Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via
Poplar Hill (C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause
of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its
safety or traffic flow. The land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing
would be contrary to the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy.
There is no demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be
Combs is currently classified as a Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilities to justify
even this low level classification. Combs' residential population must travel to Stowmarket or
beyond for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and
from Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via
Poplar Hill (C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause
of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its
safety or traffic flow. The land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing
would be contrary to the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy.
There is no demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be
Combs is currently classified as a Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilities to justify
even this low level classification. Combs' residential population must travel to Stowmarket or
beynond for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and
from Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via
Poplar Hill (C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause
of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its
safety or traffic flow. The land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing
would be contrary to the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy.
There is no demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be
Combs is currently classified as a Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilities to justify
even this low level classification. Combs' residential population must travel to Stowmarket or
beyond for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and
from Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via
Poplar Hill (C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause
of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its
safety or traffic flow. The land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing
would be contrary to the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy.
There is no demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be
.Combs is currently classified as a Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilities to
justify even this low level classification. Combs' residential population must travel to Stowmarket
or beyond for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and
from Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via
Poplar Hill (C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause
of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its
safety or traffic flow. The land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing
would be contrary to the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy.
There is no demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be
allocated for housing development. This parcel of land is accessible from one of the narrowest
Combs is currently classified as a Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilities to justify
even this low level classification. Combs' residential population must travel to Stowmarket or
beyond for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and
from Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via
Poplar Hill (C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause
of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its
safety or traffic flow. The land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing
would be contrary to the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy.
There is no demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be
allocated for housing development. If this substantial parcel of land were to be used for housing,
If the portion fronting Bildeston Road were to be offered for purely recreational use it would
provide a much needed facility for Combs.
Combs is currently classified as a Secondary Village with one pub and no other facilities to justify
even this low level classification. Combs' residential population must travel to Stowmarket or
beynond for most of their personal needs and public and social services. Road access to and
from Combs and for all other residents in the hinterland south of Stowmarket is primarily via
Poplar Hill (C443). This road has a poor safety record and as presently engineered is the cause
of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent residential areas. There is little that can be done to improve its
safety or traffic flow. The land is outside the existent settlement boundary. Its use for housing
would be contrary to the Local Plan policies, National Guidance and CS1 in the core Strategy.
There is no demonstrable need that can justify the use of this land for housing. It should not be
If allocated development on this parcel of Greenfield land would extend the Stowmarket urban
development spread beyond the settlement boundary and away from the services and facilities of
Stowmarket. This is contrary to current policies. Development would have a detrimental impact
on the landscape and be an un-necessary intrusion into the countryside. The planned expansion
of Stowmarket towards Stowupland provides sufficient housing land for the duration of the
emerging Local Development Framework. This land should not be allocated for housing
If allocated development on this parcel of Greenfield land would extend the Stowmarket urban
development spread beyond the settlement boundary and away from the services and facilities of
Stowmarket. This is contrary to current policies. Development would have a detrimental impact
on the landscape and be an un-necessary intrusion into the countryside. The planned expansion
of Stowmarket towards Stowupland provides sufficient housing land for the duration of the
emerging Local Development Framework. This land should not be allocated for housing
development. The primary access to this land would be from Poplar Hill (C443) which is the
principle road link to Combs and other villages to the south of Stowmarket. This road has a poor
safety record and as presently engineered is the cause of 2 "rat runs" through adjacent
residential areas. The additional traffic from this development would have serious implications for
If allocated development on this parcel of Greenfield land would extend the Stowmarket urban
development spread beyond the settlement boundary and away from the services and facilities of
Stowmarket. This is contrary to current policies. Development would have a detrimental impact
on the landscape and be an un-necessary intrusion into the countryside. The planned expansion
of Stowmarket towards Stowupland provides sufficient housing land for the duration of the
emerging Local Development Framework. This land should not be allocated for housing
If allocated development on this parcel of Greenfield land would extend the Stowmarket urban
development spread beyond the settlement boundary and away from the services and facilities of
Stowmarket. This is contrary to current policies. Development would have a detrimental impact
on the landscape and be an un-necessary intrusion into the countryside. The planned expansion
of Stowmarket towards Stowupland provides sufficient housing land for the duration of the
emerging Local Development Framework. This land should not be allocated for housing
development. This a very large parcel of land that could accommodate over than a hundred
houses if allocated as such. There is no existing access to this land suited to serving a housing
development of this scale.. A new access road would have to connect with Lindsey Way &/or
Lavenham Way which would have serious repercussions for traffic flows and congestion at
If this land were to offered as a land bid for recreational use only it would satisfy a long standing
demand for such space from the residents of Lavenham Park Estate. Such a use would also be
complementary to the Special Interest land to the southwest.
If allocated development on this parcel of Greenfield land would extend the Stowmarket urban
development spread beyond the settlement boundary and away from the services and facilities of
Stowmarket. This is contrary to current policies. Development would have a detrimental impact
on the landscape and be an un-necessary intrusion into the countryside. The planned expansion
of Stowmarket towards Stowupland provides sufficient housing land for the duration of the
emerging Local Development Framework. This land should not be allocated for housing
If allocated development on this parcel of Greenfield land would extend the Stowmarket urban
development spread beyond the settlement boundary and away from the services and facilities of
Stowmarket. This is contrary to current policies. Development would have a detrimental impact
on the landscape and be an un-necessary intrusion into the countryside. The planned expansion
of Stowmarket towards Stowupland provides sufficient housing land for the duration of the
emerging Local Development Framework. This land should not be allocated for housing
development. This a very large parcel of land that could accommodate over than a hundred
houses if allocated as such. There is no existing access to this land suited to serving a housing
development of this scale.. A new access road would have to connect with Lindsey Way &/or
Lavenham Way which would have serious repercussions for traffic flows and congestion at
If this land were to offered as a land bid for recreational use only it would satisfy a long standing
demand for such space from the residents of Lavenham Park Estate. Such a use would also be
complementary to the Special Interest land to the southwest.
The LDF website site plan includes Plot 2 as well as Plot 1. Plot 2 has been developed by
3663 for a distribution facility.
Plot 1 is surplus to PPG’s operational requirements, and is physically separated from the
PPG operational site.
It is within a site for which a Lawful Development Certificate for employment use has been
obtained.
It has excellent road access and services available.
It is eminently suitable for employment development.
b) The site is well located to the A14 and ports. Further warehousing and distribution use would
be consistent with current uses in this location. The allocation that we are suggesting would be
consistent with uses discussed with MSDC LDF Dept.
a) This site is indicated as proposed for industrial use. We propose that the allocation should be
for employment, including warehousing and distribution.
INAPPROPRIATE - too small.
Most appropriate site for development because site partially developed as a pre-fab site and
there is a precedent for development - need in village for AFFORDABLE FAMILY HOUSING to
prevent families moving away as I had to - significant impact e.g. on school role - size of plot
suits target figure of 415 houses annually across Mid-Suffolk - local authority housing in
immediate area would be more incorporated with village if growth this way - no constraints e.g.
INAPPROPRIATE - too large - development would be too big for village needs infrastructure and
would have serious negative impact, NB - large developments already built on Home Meadow,
Jubilee Close and Noyes Avenue.
Least appropriate.
Inappropriate - site too small.
In appropriate - site too large development. Would be too big for infrastructure.
1) Size of plot most suits target figure of 415 houses annually across Mid-Suffolk.
2) Previously part developed as pre-fab site (precedent for development).
3) Local authority housing in the immediate area and, therefore, village would expand towards
4) No issues regarding any restraints.
5) Need in village for affordable family homes to prevent loss of young people to the village.
I am extremely surprised to hear that a housing development is a possibility in this area. At
present Farriers Road, Weavers Close and Mills Close represent an ideal community, quiet and
semi-rural, not ripe for turning into an estate full of 'rat runs' used by too many cars on too small
There is no way that this small community could cope with the additional traffic through a building
project or a completed new housing development. Whether access to a development is via
Farriers Road or Poplar Hill there is no way the surrounding roads could maintain such an
Furthermore, Stowmarket's infrastructure is stretched to its limits already. Schools where the
class sizes are much too large to doctors surgeries bursting at the seams and dental services
that are so difficult to find. Estate agents are perhaps the only people that will benefit from this
Also on a purely selfish side the wildlife in this area is really wonderful. From my window I
regularly see deer grazing, pheasants calling out excitedly and many woodpeckers that have
So to finish I should like to confirm that I would be completely against any development that may
come from this 'land bid' and I ask that I should be kept informed by yourselves of any further
a) Debenham.
b) 4h, X7ob & NB - 5lr
c) 3h, 1lr & 1h
d) Are all too far away from the village centre. No access to Low Road due to river along entire
northern boundary. 3h in particular partly lies on an area renowned for flooding. The storm
water from these three sites will drain directly into the river in Low Road. This river cannot take
any more storm water. Properties along the river/Low Road have a history of flooding. Large
new developments over the last 15 years opposite 3h have already aggravated this problem. NO
This is a wholly inappropriate location for a development. The location is in an area of unspoilt
landscape that has no direct links with Debenham Village. The local community have been
redeveloping the area for woodland and walks and this development will go against this ethos.
There is no infrastructure available to take the demands of 150-200 houses. There are no mains
sewage and the BT is already at capacity. The roads are not designed to take the additional
load of cars. Assuming 150-200 houses will result in around 300 additional cars the unclassified
road will become a death trap. The obvious junction for cars leaving the development is at a
point that is 'blind' from traffic moving in either direction. The roads are already to capacity from
the Debenham Garage and also Anchor Storage in Kenton. To get into Debenham the road at
After the Maltings House junction the most obvious route into Debenham is to the High Street
past Bloomfields. Just after Priory Lane and before Neaves there is another blind one-way road
that will be extremely congested if the development is present. At the High Street junction again
traffic will need to negotiate another section of the road where on coming traffic speeds down
High Street (from the Gracechurch Street end) and are blind to the traffic coming from the
In summary, the additional load of traffic into Debenham, especially at peak times, will result in
congestion and unnecessary bottlenecks and will also increase the risk to very high for road
traffic accidents. We will see deaths on this road. It should also be noted that a section of road
from Maltings House towards the development is a continuation of a footpath. The increased
traffic, over and above the current high baseload, will put pedestrians at an unnecessary high
I also consider that the schools are full capacity and cannot take any further children. I
understand Sir Robert Hitcham school daily turns children away and Debenham High is past
saturation. Therefore the school children will have to find alternative schools away from
Debenham. Given the current climate on carbon footprint this development will only seek to
In summary, I would implore you not to include this development into the LDF or to allow this
development to go to planning. It is wholly unsuitable, will spoil the local landscape and will
result in road congestion and road traffic accidents. This development must be rejected.
Most appropriate.
The majority of the historic development within the village has been carried out as ribbon
development along The High Street and Mill Lane. The proposed development sites detailed as
1h and 6h mirror past development by being sited adjacent to these roads. The proposed sites
also include areas of Brownfield thus avoiding unnecessary development of Greenfield land.
In light of the lack of affordable housing it would be preferable for development to provide small
affordable units and/or social housing to benefit the youth of the village.
The site proposed is presently Greenfield and laid to woodland and semi-permanent pasture.
The site adjoins the gardens of a number of the original Grade 2 listed houses in the village and
would substantially detract from the existing character and amenities of these dwellings.
In an area predominantly intensive agriculture the proposed site is a haven to native wildlife. Of
considerable concern would be the loss of habitat to song birds. A number of birds of prey use
this area for hunting. A sizable bat population benefit from the concentration of insect life
The proposed site adjoins the existing playing fields and amenity space for the village. The
proposed development of this site would restrict access to the playing fields and compromise the
communites enjoyment of this valuable open space.
Least appropriate.
The proposed site is presently Greenfield. The bulk of the proposed site would substantially
detract from the amenities of the existing houses and is out of keeping with previous ribbon
a) Eye.
b) Airfield brownfield site/ mixed use proposal.
Is land at rear of 6 houses at Langton Green - not just 81a.
c) Greenfield open country of natural beauty.
c) Greenfield open country of natural beauty.
The development of this areas that are outside the existing s/b would require more car
entrance/exit on to Church Lance to ensure a safe junction for all road users as it is located at
the brow of a hill and at a narrow point in the road. Housing development would bring additional
The development of this area for housing would bring an increase in vehicle traffic using Church
Lane/Rose Walk and is outside the existing s/b.
These two areas of 'Greenfield' land are outside the existing s/b, Development of these sites,
especially for housing or other uses requiring the erection of building would not only significantly
change the character of this land and expand the village towards Henley, but also bring an
unacceptable increase in vehicular traffic using Church Lane/Rose Walk, including LGV size
Water drains from the higher ground south of the main street (Bury Road) and pours into the
brook running through Rickinghall churchyard and adjoining properties.If we have heavy rain the
water just runs into this brook through large drainage pipes which go under the road. In the
1960s the church was flooded, as well as properties in Water Lane, Bury Road and the main
street. Water Lane has also been flooded more recently . If extra houses are built this will
Wetheringsett cum Brockford - The Parish Council takes the view there should be no further
development in the Parish, beyond some form of affordable housing subject to establishing a
I believe the sites most appropriate to be 1h and 4h because they have good access to main
roads and are at relatively low risk of flooding. These sites are not too big as the character of
Debenham as a village is under threat. There are a lot of services in Debenham however these
are all limited by their size and location. The schools in Debenham are working at capacity with
the primary school unable to offer a space to another child unless one leaves. Small roads and
parking creatd difficulties in the village. The small doctors surgery would have to be re-located
and extended to accommodate greater numbers. It is unfair to Debenham and the wider
I am not in favour of this site as much development has already been carried out at The
Meadows. The infrastructure - please see separate sheet. Capacity in this area is poor: the
drainage is overloaded, sewerage provision is old, the highway is narrow and then becomes a
single carriageway, and parking for the doctor's surgery congests the road. Low Road is already
used for access to Gardeners Road, the Barrett Estate and the new Meadows Development.
Parking for Low Road residents is not adequate and there is much parking on the road. The
views in this area will be severely impaired, wildlife habitats will be lost and overall residential
amenity will go down in this area. There has already been continuous building work in the area
for a few years with all the noise that brings. And not least the area adjacent to Low Road area
I am opposed to this site as the walking, footpaths and countryside here would be lost. The site
that is proposed is too large for the village to cope with.
I agree that the high school needs more playing field as they currectnly only have space for 1
I consider these four sites to be wholly inappropriate for consideration as they all fall within a
conservation area. What is the point of a Conservation Area? The area near the airfield would
be the the most appropriate, subject to suitable road access to A140.
This site is now a woodland area and is too far from the amenities (down a very busy road) to be
viable. Central sites such as 3h and nb 6h are far more suitable.
Bramford is a large village already and all the extra proposed development will make it more like
a small town. We have recently moved from Ipswich and one of the main reasons we moved was
to go to a village. The proposed football pitch opposite Loraine Way is not a problem, but any
additional housing is the extra traffic, and children needing to go to the primary school would
I would like to submit my site of the Pottery (former old Parish Room) in Low Road Debenham to
be taken as a late Land bid. I would like to point out that the former old Parish Room currently
used as a Pottery has had Outline Planning Permission granted for over 15 years. However,
planning was unable to be renewed in July 2007 owing to objections which are currently the
The site could accommodate 2/3 domestic properties and is within the settlement boundary. I
would further support the demolition of the old Debenham Gargage in Low Road (opposite my
site). Again this is also within the settlement boundary. I would like to register my objections to
other sites which are outside the settlement boundary.
Any development would add to problems on roads in Stowupland.
Appropriate subject to highway safety considerations.
Most inappropriate - large swathe of open area, rising land. If large scale, development would
bring large volumes of construction traffic and (later) traffic to and from the new houses onto
unsuitable roads inc narrow lanes. Any increase in traffic on A1120 will make conditions worse
for those wishing to gain access to the schools, church, etc. Roads across village green are
unsuitable for any increase in traffic and junctions are at (or above) capacity. There appears little
scope for sufficient highways or safety improvements. Walking and cycling are already
Appropriate subject to protection of adjacent dwelling from noise, dust, drainage overflow and
consideration of junction and safety improvements at Mill Street/B1115 and B1115/A1120.
Difficult to incorporate a development so far from amenities into the community. Would increase
pressure to build between Stowupland and Stowmarket.
1. All of these sites will cause problems to the underground sewage system - especially if they
connect to the existing system in Front Street and Old Market Street - because the current
sewage system is already overloaded. This is borne out by Anglian Water having to visit on
several occasions in 2007 to pressure clear the system. Anglian Water employees acknowledge
that the diameter of the current system is inadequate now and needs replacing.
2. The identified areas will lead to traffic congestion around the conservation area and problems
for pedestrians on Mill Road, Old Station Road and Brockford Road due to a lack of a suitable
3. The above proposals would put an increased strain on the local school to accommodate extra
pupils coming as it does at a time of reorganisation to a 5-11 system.
4. There is no evidence that local employment would be available for these extra inhabitants - so
they could commute with even more car journeys per day.
A development of this size would swamp the village and would virtually double the population.
The present road system could not cope. This would spoil the beautiful views over this land from
the properties in this part of the village.
This is an ideal site for development with satisfactory infrastructure already in place although
some improvement in Norton Road would be needed. The site should be able to consider social
benefits of 1) Social housing, 2) Housing for the over 55s, 3) Doctors Surgery and 4) Possible a
This is an ideal site for development with satisfactory infrastructure already in place. Social
benefits should include a few social housing and some for the over 55s both for owner occupied
The planning authority should work with the developer for a satisfactory solution to enable the
site to be economically viable. The main planning gain would be to clear a derelict site which
has been an eyesore for many years.
This site next to the Commmunity College should be resisted as, in my view, it would cause
traffic chaos in this part of the village. At the present time it is difficult for traffic to travel in and
around the area in the mornings and evenings for 3/4 hour each time.
Land to the east of Fen View, Thorndon.
We think Thorndon and this land should be considered. It is central to the village assets and to
keep young people in the village to keep it alive. There is work at Occold L.S.R. research station
and Eye Airfield is expanding all the while. It is only 2 miles from A140 for Stowmarket, Ipswich -
We have 3 children who have had to move out of the village to find houses that they can afford
and unless there are changes the village will die because only people from outside the village
can afford to buy the larger houses being built here. Please help the young people.
HPC would seek this as an opportunity to open up limited development to another part of the
village but this would have to be sensitive to the trees and other environmental factors.
HPC have strong concerns regarding parking in Cross Street and general road safety issues.
HPC would see this as an opportunity for some planning gain to fund access to the rear of the
After due consideration Hoxne Parish Council (HPC) unanimously agreed at their council
meeting on the 17th September 2007 that two of the proposed sites, number 6h and 3h are
within the constraints of the development proposals of the District Council. HPC recognise that
these two sites offer possibilities for inclusion in the village envelope.
In either case, HPC would prefer to see phased development over a number of years respecting
a total village requirement of up to fifteen houses over the coming decade. HPC have some
reservations about future proposals and would like to see the village infrastructure limitations
taken into account in future proposals to cover highways pressure and provision for schooling.
Does not meet Core Strategy greenfield locational criteria (not north-west or north-east of
Poor environmental and overall score in SA;
A prominent site on the south facing slope of the valley side with no natural boundary to contain
development. Highly conspicuous from the surrounding countryside with limited possibilities for
Development would adversely impact on the setting of Combs Church;
Limited mitigation opportunities due to intervisibility along valley.
Does not meet Core Strategy greenfield locational criteria (not north-west or north-east of
A prominent site on the south facing slope of the valley side with no natural boundary to contain
development. Highly conspicuous from the surrounding countryside with limited possibilities for
Development would adversely impact on the setting of Combs Church.
At risk of flooding.
Broadly accords with Core Strategy locational guidance, although is strictly neither north-east or
north-west of Stowmarket;
Part of site within Special Landscape Area;
Site at risk of flooding.
Does not meet Core Strategy greenfield locational criteria (not north-west or north-east of
Noise concerns highlighted in SA;
Poor environmental and overall score in SA;
The site is poorly related to the urban area and orientated towards the open countryside. It
occupies the south facing slope of the valley side and is conspicuous from the neighbouring
Does not meet Core Strategy greenfield locational criteria (not north-west or north-east of Stowmarket);
Poor overall score in SA;
A prominent site on the south facing slope of the valley side with no natural boundary to contain
development. Highly conspicuous from the surrounding countryside with limited possibilities for
Meets the locational guidance in Core Strategy, being north-east of Stowmarket;Noise concerns
relating to lorry movements noted in SA;Highly prominent ridge, reducing mitigation
potential;Should not be regarded as PDL, as agricultural buildings are specifically excluded from
definition in Annex B to PPS3;SA score is therefore falsely inflated.
Meets the locational guidance in Core Strategy, being north-east of Stowmarket;
Western part of site at risk of flooding (overlooked by SA);
Allotment gardens on steeply rising land. Eastern part of the site is low lying and embankment
with the A14 is partially wooded; Development would be prominent in local views due to rising
Does not meet Core Strategy greenfield locational criteria (not north-west or north-east of Stowmarket);
Within Special Landscape Area, and close to SSSI – development unacceptable;
Prominent plateau of land with extensive views from the north and consequently unacceptable landscape imp
Does not meet Core Strategy greenfield locational criteria (not north-west or north-east of Stowmarket);
This area was intended within the SDA masterplan to be kept as open space, and should therefore continue t
At risk of flooding;
Unsuitable for housing due to its poor relationship to the urban area and neighbouring industrial uses.
Meets the locational guidance in Core Strategy, being north-west of Stowmarket; Good
accessibility to facilities and services, and through scale of development, able to deliver further
facilities and employment development as part of mixed urban extension;Free from any
designation for landscape character or quality, and capable of mitigation measures due to flat
nature of the landscape;Able to ensure adequate separation from Onehouse through appropriate
provision of open space;Good access to the A14 for mixed-use elements and well related to


Meets the locational guidance in Core Strategy, being north-west of Stowmarket;
Should not be regarded as PDL as recreation grounds specifically excluded from definition in
Appendix B to PPS3;

SA score may therefore have been inflated on this basis;
Good accessibility to facilities and services, and through potential scale of development (with
9h), able to deliver further facilities and employment development as part of mixed use urban
Not entirely free from constraint given playing field and Visually Important Open Space status,
which the SA again fails to recognize accurately;
Only able to overcome these policy constraints through remodeling of open space as part of
comprehensive development with Land Bid site 9h, on which it is therefore dependent.
Justification for closure of existing school or development of its playing fields would be required,
particularly given additional needs likely to result in this part of the town;
Good accessibility to facilities and services;
Not entirely free from constraint given playing field and Visually Important Open Space status,
which it may be difficult to overcome in isolation.
Site lies within Special Landscape Area and is poorly related to the settlement.


Conservation Area constraints;
Should be retained for employment uses.
At risk of flooding.
Land containing agricultural buildings should not be classified as PDL, according to Annex B to
PPS3;
Also SA incorrectly suggests that the site is within the settlement boundary;

Accords with locational criteria of Core Strategy, being to north-west of Stowmarket;
Could not be developed in isolation, therefore only consider allocation in association with 9h
should this be required to meet greenfield dwelling requirement and would be beneficial to
comprehensive development proposals.
Site adjacent to flood risk area;
Within Special Landscape Area;
Site is incorrectly stated in SA to be within settlement boundary.
Does not accord with locational criteria of Core Strategy (as it is not to the north-west or north-
east of Stowmarket);
Scores poorly in SA;
Site at risk of flooding;
Site lies within Special Landscape Area;
Poorly related to the urban area.
SA highlights historic building constraints relating to Listed Buildings and Conservation Area
Site does not accord with locational criteria of Core Strategy (as it is not to the north-west or
north-east of Stowmarket);
At risk of flooding;
Development would stretch built form excessively to the south-east and therefore increasingly
remote from the town centre, and producing unsatisfactory ribbon development;
Does not relate well to urban edge of Stowmarket.
Site does not accord with locational criteria of Core Strategy (as it is not to the north-west or
north-east of Stowmarket;
Development would extend beyond the strong physical boundary formed by the A1120 ring-road
in this part of Stowmarket, which forms a distinction between the urban area and countryside to
Prominent in views from the A1120;
The site relates poorly to the settlement, due to its physical separation by dual carriageway at
Does not meet Core Strategy greenfield locational criteria (not north-west or north-east of
Noise concerns highlighted in SA;
Poor environmental and overall score in SA;
The site is poorly related to the urban area and orientated towards the open countryside. It
occupies the south facing slope of the valley side and is conspicuous from the neighbouring
Please see attached table for comments on all sites relating to Stowmarket urban area, including
highlighted actions for those sites which should be rejected at this stage and those which it is
considered should be allocated or at least retained for further consideration.
Meets locational criteria in Core Strategy, being north-west of Stowmarket, but is remote from the
urban edge and would produce excessive extension of the urban area along the A14 to the north-
west, increasingly further from the town centre;
Inappropriate for development because road access (Low Road) very poor and frequent
flooding, outside settlement boundary.
High impact on view approaching the village ie visually important open space, outside the
High impact on view approaching the village ie visually important open space, outside the
boundary, also no access without 3h or 1h.
This is suitable for housing in principle, if access is ok. This is the only suitable housing site
amongst the Debenham land bids.
Outside the boundary. Access is very poor, without widening Thorpe Lane consicderably. This
is in an area of visually important open space and would have a bad impact.
This is a poor choice of sitek for playing field. A better site would be between Low Road and the
High School - outside the boundary.
Outside the settlement boundary badly affecting visually important open space.
Outside the settlement boundary badly affecting visually important open space, plus poor road
access. Access is possible via Kenton Road but in practice traffic would use Cross Green route
past Bloomfields, which is unsuitable for frequent traffic. High impact on new woodland/lake
All suffer from very poor walking access and mostly poor cycling access.
All sites will have an impact on school provision and both schools are oversubscribed. Although
section 106 obligations were imposed on the Meadows Developments (Lawrence Homes) the
gains for schools were impossible to realise because it was impossible to identify which demand
was attributable to the development and the High School had to cater for possible demand in
Many families do move to Debenham because of the schools - difficult to prove but it's a real
fact. Therefore, the normal formula is unrealistic for demand in schools. If possible a planning
obligation should be imposed without hurdles or small print ie one which can't be wriggled out of!
a) Debenham
b) Closest to all amenities with least environmental damage to the village, recreation already
b) Playing field extension.
c) In flood zone, access to Low Road only over river which floods. Area of BAP species, barn
owls, bats, newts, voles and many varieties of bird. Surrounded by ancient hedging opposite
new development which is incomplete - the impact of this must be accessed first. Greenfield site
remote from village as no access into Low Road. Visually important open space.
Access only by Winston Road at which there is no footpath. Both agricultural land and presents
good outlook on approach to village - this would be ruined. Drainage from here to Low Road
increasing flood risk. Not in walking distance of primary schools visually important open space.
Flooding.
Poor roads.
I noticed that on the information given for my bid there was no mention of affordable housing.
On earlier documents there is, could you please check your copies and amend if necessary. I
can see no reason why I could not make available some land to Flagship Housing to enable their
It has been suggest that this site was available for three homes. There were difficulties with
access and potential traffic. Very narrow road in a rural outpost.
This site was seen as a possible choice (as it is already developed in part) provided the number
of properties was restricted. Concerns raised: an important hedgerow and the habitat therein
would need to be protected. Ideally the hedgerow should be taken out of the plan completely.
This site was a possible choice as it is in a central part of the village. Concerns raised: car
parking at the school; access to the site; it is a wildlife haven and this would need to be
This site was not considered suitable as it was too large an area for the number of properties
This site was not the preferred choice, seen as somewhat a less suitable than others.
Fressingfield had been delegated a Primary Village, that is one capable of only limited
development and the share of the total number of proposed properties allowable between 2010
and 2025 (approx 30 within the 15 year time scale) is commensurate with that outlined in the
This site was not considered suitable being inappropriate at the current time as it intruded into
This site was seen as a possible choice although the size of the plot was much too large for the
number of properties required. A possible solution was suggested: part of the land could be
used for car parking; some could be added to the playing field area for use and access.
Provided the number of properties built did not exceed the number required (as demonstrated in
I would support this to provide employment, providing that proper provision is made for
landscaping.

Would not support - "ribbon " development.
Would not support - Greenfield area prone to flooding.

Unable to support - Special Landscape Area

Unable to support - Special Landscape Area

Would not support - outside the sb and lack of infrastructure
Suggest should be primarily residential with some employment use - there is already the
opportunity for commercial use on the Lion Barn Industrial Estate opposite.

Would not support - development in open countryside.

Would not support - outside sb and designated SLA.

Could not support - within Conservation Area and visually prominent.

Would support an application for HGV parking on this site.
Would support this providing that sympathetic attention is given to design - there are already 2
bungalows outside sb.
Is not identified, however allowance has been made for approximately 130 houses on this site. It
is essential that the town centre car park adjacent to Christchurch is retained for the viability of
Could not support - visually prominent and ribbon development . Proposed HGV "through traffic"
ban in Needham Market.
Felsham, in the heart of rural Suffolk is a relatively unspoilt village of charm and character that
should be protected for future generations. The three land bids for development in part of the
parish and in Gedding should be rejected on the following basis: 1. There is no need or further
development other than the minimal provision of affordable housing as determined by need
(Criteria 2). 2 Expansion outside the settlement boundary would have a significant visual impact
on the approaches to the village (Criteria 10). 3. Any development would place additional
pressure on the parish infrastructure and particularly on the already overburdened sewerage and
I'm concerned about the pland to build on the greenfield site in Fitzgerald Road , Bramford .
Proposedf plans in 2002 were refused for a number of reasons ie unsafe access to and from the
site also the public footpath was/is to be safeguarded in the footpath and bridleway network.
This site is very important for its visual open space. If a housing development has to happen in
Bramford are these plans to build more class rooms at Bramford and Sproughton primary
schools as they are at capacity at the moment. Fitzgerald Road is already a busy road with
buses lorries and cars coming and going through the village any housing would increase traffic .
I feel also that the plans for the football pitches completely unjustifiable when we have adequate
As previously stated by the Parish Council during the consultation process, the Parish Council
agrees with the classification of Worlingworth as a "Secondary V illage" in the settlement
hierarchy. Rejection of the 7 (seven) land bids within the parish meets with the wishes of the
Parish Council and the wishes (and opinions) of the majority of parishioners, 84% of whom took
part in the Village Survey of the Worlingworth Parish Plan, in 2004 - 2006 . Any further future
housing would only exacerbate a deteriorating situation with the main sewage system which
Debenham is already undergoing further development. Any more will increase the surface water
to the river increasing the flood risk to existing buildings. Futher, suggestion 2h e Thorpe Lane is
next to a sewage farm and on a small narrow lane with difficult and dangerous access.
Any of the sites adjacent to the redundant Bacon Factory site should be considered as potential
extension to the Development Envelope if this enables a link road scheme. A link road scheme
is pre-eminent in the village's perceived infrastructure needs.
Need time to establish that this is habitat for Biological Records Centre species. Mr Martin
Sandford advises that habitats often only come to light when a planning application is made,
therefore he does not have it documented. Although he does have water voles which are very
important and newts are in similar areas of river valleys across Mid Suffolk. Ancient hedging
around this site, he says , would be the habitat for bats we see frequently. Mr Mitchell of MSDC
confirms that countryside hedges are preserved. Hedgerows Regs 1997. Flood risk.
Most appropriate sites are those in North part of Bramford, in the triangle bordered by Paper Mill
Lane and the river. Primarily because it is a brownfield site.
The least appropriate proposals are those for the south part of Bramford ie adjacent to Fitzgerald
Road and the B1113. Reasons :- 1. The demand for housing in this area is insufficient to dictate
the use of this greenfield site yet. 2. Planning permission has already been refused for a raft of
good reasons.3. It is ourside the village settlement of boundary . 4 No means of "access" is
shown in the site proposals. The positioning is critical to any proposal,most are likely to be
poor/dangerous. 5. There is already a football pitch in the village. 6. No mention is made of the
footpath, which passes through the most easterly site. 7. This is also a "visually important open
space" adjacent to the village settlement boundary and provides safe access for the villagers to
a) At the time this application was made the site described in the supporting evidence was
vacant. However, during 2006 the site was let to Ichiban and is running with (presumably) full
employment so most of the supporting evidence is no longer relevant. b) Great concern was also
expressed by the Parish Council of the close proximity of this application to the Grade 1 Parish
Church and felt any development/changes to the site should be screened from and sympathetic
to the Parish Council. c) With the current state of NHS it was also felt it unlikely any funding
would be available to fund a doctors surgery. The Parishioners of Earl Stonham currently attend
3 doctors surgeries and it was felt unlikely Parishioners would change as the site is on the edge
of the village and so they would be unable to walk so would still have to get in their vehicles/
arrange a lift etc. This would also apply to the local shop - it would take most parishioners
c) The village also has a well used Bus Service and Tescos weekly free bus which (mostly)
pensioners of the Parish use who would (mostly) be unable to walk to the proposed shop.
Concern was expressed of short term Tourists to the village to the security of the Grade 1 listed
Church. There was also comments as to 'why tourists would want to stay in Earl Stonham for a
We are convinced that the site should be included for consideration for Residential Development
by the Site Specific Allocations Workshop for the following reasons: 1. The land was formerly
used as a Timber Yard and as such would be suitable for development in accordance with
Section 7 of the Site Specific Allocations Issues and Options Policy Document.2. Development
of the site would make a contribution to the Council's own target for development of 180 houses
on previously developed land in Needham Market during the period 2010 - 2015 as defined in
Section 6 item (i) of the same document. 3) The site also provideds the opportunity for
employment as part of a mixed development. Needham Market is identified in Section 6 Item (ii)
of the above document as a location for employment in accordance with the Council's own Core
Strategy. The site was an established location for employment until the worksofrce was
 4) The site has established access onto the and infrastructure such as mains electricity and
drainage is readily available. 5) The site could also provide a resolution to the traffic problem
which occurs from time to time regarding high vehicles unable to pass under the adjacent railway
bridge and therefore need to reverse along the B1078. The site would provide a turning head for
His clients support the proposed arrangements for Site Allocations noting in particular that
Walsham le Willows is included in the list of Primary Village for which limited small-scale growth
will be permitted. Of the two sites for which they have made land bids one (NB 8h) follows on
(and is connected to) the Elmside Farm site currently being developed and would provide a
scheme of the limited scale envisaged. The other (NB 7h) is a site at the edge of the settlement
boundary which is proposed for 100% affordable housing. In terms of allocations in individual
settlements it is noted that the Core Strategy allows for sites at least 300 dwellings to be divided
among the 11 Primary Villages which gives an average of some 27 houses per village over the
plan period. It is felt that this may be an underestimate of the overall requirement given current
Those three sites if developed, the rainwater drainage will end up in the water course which has
already caused flooding previously. The additional water can only cause more flooding.
Residents in Water Lane have already been refused insurance by some insurers as we live in a
flood plain. Any further developments on these fields are going to make the flooding risk greater.
Insurers will either refuse to insure or greatly increase premiums. While those in the new
Unsuitable for large development. Too far from centre of village. Development only on side of
road. Trees in Ketchers Lane have preservation orders on them.
Unsuitable for development, dangerous narrow road with bad access on to The Street.
Unsuitable plot for development on dangerous bend on narrow road with bad access.
Suitable site for development particularly for starter homes.
Unsuitable for secondary development.
Site reference 5h has previously been promoted as a potential housing allocation. The following
information is intended to provide the Council with further supporting information in respect of
site 5h, and is related to the adjacent land to the morth of the railway line (dealt with as a
separate land-bid). We are aware that there is a need to ease the current congestion on Station
Road arising from the level crossing, which currently forms the only link between the northern
and southern parts of Elmswell. Whilst development of the attached site would not contribute
towards this problem - traffic from our site would be able to access the A14 via School Lane - we
recognise that land to the west of the attached site could help to provide a solution to the
problem by providing land for a new relief road around the north western part of Elmswell, linking
Land to the west of our site offers a logical location for the provision of a new relief road between
School Road and the railway line. However, we recognise that additional land would be required
to complete the relief road and envisage that any additiional land to the west of site 5h, would be
planned in conjunction with our land-bid to the north of the railway line (please see our land-bid
for land to the north-west of Elmswell) and that of adjacent landowners, who are currently in
discussions with possibility of strategic proposals to deliver an Elmswell relief road.
The attached site is well related to the village and provides a natural extension to the west of the
village together with existing development off School Avenue. The attached site is in close
proximity to the village centre, including Elmswell Station and the main village facilities and
convenience shops. It has good public transport links to nearby towns via rail and bus. The
attached site is in close proximity to the village school (Elmswell County Primary School) and
schools for older children in Beyton, Thurston and Stowupland, which are accessible by public
Our land bid has well defined boundaries along its northern, eastern and southern edges. Whilst
there is no defining boundary to the west of our land bid, the built form associated with Elmswell
Hall to the west and north-west means that development of our land would not have a significant
impact on the open countryside to the west of our site (ie it would not represent an intrusion into
the countryside). In addition to the land that is the subject of this site-specific representation, we
are also owners of the surrounding farmland to the west of Elmswell. Whilst we are not
promoting this land for development our surrounding land interests could provide additional land
Access to the attached land could be achieved via School Road, avoiding the level crossing.
Allocation of the attached site (together with additional land to the west for the relief road) in
conjunction with surrounding land bids could provide wider benefits to Elmswell by providing a
new relief road, linking Station Road with School Road via a new railway bridge.
Once again we are faced with the possibility of building works at the top of our garden which we
had been led to believe would never happen! The proposed buildings (houses and industrial
units) would be considerably higher than our property and will cause several issues:- 1.
Flooding - ditch on Bridewell Lane already overflows with heavy rainfalls which obviously cannot
cope, and in turn washes silt off the fields and covers the lane. 2. Loss of light and sunshine
due to the buildings being more than one storey high. 3. Overlooked - affecting privacy. 4.
Increase in noise levels. 5. Loss of wildlife - there are several deer in this area, besides rabbits,
There has already been a significant amount of new builds in Botesdale bringing more children
to the village. We are informed that the local schools are already overstretched with new pupils.
We would suggest that the best option for the field adjacent to our property would be to enlarge
the play area. There has been vandalism to the new shelter for teenagers in the said park and if
the shelter was moved out in the open on a nicely cut field, we would be able to keep an eye on
offenders!. The field would be welcomed by newcomers to our village. With the amount of bids
that have been proposed across East Anglia the Council should perhaps consider brown field
I support the site proposal in Bickers Hill Road. This site will support a small-modest size
development over time in line with the village requirements. The site will balance the village more
proportionately around its nucleaus of the church and village shop. A low/small scale
development very inkeeping with a site of this size versus the much larger sites (inc. Orchards
proposal) and be very much in keeping with the "Streetscene" along Bickers Hill. The recently
constructed pavement provides good walking and sustainable access for residents to the village
church and shop. The plot would also release some revenue to the village as part of the plot is
owned by Parish Council. This could be reinvested in the village in other areas, culture,
recreation, infrastructure etc. This would benefit the whole village. This application also
I would add the following support of proposals 2h and 3h in Bickers Hill Laxfield. The plot
proposed at 4h is in excess of 70,000 square meters, suitable only for a large scale housing
development which could change the character of the village significantly, move the balance of
the village to the north west away from it's social centre of the church, pub and village shops and
provides housing requirements significantly in excess of the actual requirements of the village.
Plot 1h, is a small individual plot, probably suitable for a single development. Plots 2h and 3h,
are the remaining plots proposed in Laxfield and at circa 13,000 sq mtrs are of the ideal size to
accomodate the identified housing needs of the village for the short, medium and longer term.
The site 3h has previously been used for housing development. Prefabricated houses were
Plots 2h & 3h, whilst currently marginally outside of the village boundary would form an 'in-fill' role
between the houses within the village boundary and the council/privately owned housing further
up Bickers Hill, fitting nicely into the street scene in that area.
The site is currently of no use to the village, whereas sites 4h, the orchards have value to the
village in their original form as orchards and so having a small-scale development on site 2h and
3h would add new value to the village. Plot 3h is currently used as a dumping ground for
vehicles and other, which would no longer happen if it was used for housing. I would make the
point that the village needs a balance of business and housing developments over time to
sustain it and maintain a positive future and developing housing on site 4h would take away a
longstanding important business potential (the orchards). We need to develop infrastructures
which provide increased sustainability over time, within this local sourcing of food is increasingly
important, building housing on a site previously used as orchards is contrary to this sustainable
need. It is for all these reasons (and those detailed on the proforma) that I fully support the need
Key Service Centre. The most appropriate site for housing including new village green, sports
ground, sports pavilion and children's play area is the new land bid to the north of Mill Road and
south of Chapel Road, Mendlesham. The site is deliverable within the first five years of the LDF,
it is available, suitable and achievable all as prescribed by para 54 of PPS3. The development of
the site would meet with the LDF strategy as Mendlesham is a Key Service Centre. The site will
deliver a mix of house types and size to provide a range of both Market and Affordable housing
together with a new village green, Public Open Space, Sports Ground. Sports Pavilion and
children's equipped play area.The ssite is able to provide a total of 60 dwellings at a notional
capacity of 30 dwellings per hectare. Vehicular access can be provided both from Mill Road and
Additional landscaping throughout the site will be provided to enhance existing tree planting
which has taken place along the western boundary, and to form a new village green and a new
tree belt along the eastern boundary. The site provides an aooportunity for further residential
The Least Appropriate - Proposed development is in floodplain.
The Least Appropriate - Proposed development adjoins floodplain.
The Least Appropriate - Proposed development adjoins floodplain.
The Least Appropriate - Site may not be deliverable within plan period. Adjoins existing
employment site and would represent a non-conforming use detrimental to residential amenity.
The Least Appropriate - Adjoins conservation area and within protected space. Proposed
development would have detrimental impact on setting of church and landscape.
The Least Appropriate - Site may not be deliverable within the plan period. Existing employment
GR Warehousing Ltd including 'Freightstore' would need to relocate.
The Least Appropriate - Adjoins conservation area and detrimental impact on setting of church
The Least Appropriate - In floodplain.
The Least Appropriate - Unsustainable location divorced from settlement boundary.
The Least Appropriate - Unsustainable location divorced from settlement boundary.
The Least Appropriate - Unsustainable location divorced from settlement boundary.
Can you please register that I have spoken to a number of local residents about the 3 land bids,
but specifically the 2 to the west of Poplar Hill. All persons expressed concern over increased
traffic on roads that are inadequate for the current traffic at the main travel times and of course
'school run' times. All additional traffic will be funnelled into Poplar Hill and Edgecomb Road.
Edgecomb Road was originally purely residential with a number of walks off it; these walks do
not have vehicular access which means that these residents park in 'Lay-by' parking areas in
Edgecomb Road, these parking areas allow for vehicles parking at an angle and protruding into
the carriageway of Edgecomb Road. This effectively reduces Edgecomb Road to 'A SINGLE
TRACK ROAD WITH PASSING PLACES' allowing that most households have two vehicles,
(more, if there are adult children living at home or the addition of a 'works vehicle) parking off
road is not possible for everyone. Poplar Hill is wider to the south of Edgar Avenue but narrows
Due to 'permitted' but necessary parking in this area this also is effectively a 'single track road.
The traffic calming platforms have the effect of diverting some traffic into Edgecomb Road,
thereby increasing the problems in that area. The roads leading into the one way system at
Combs Ford are very close to capacity and any significant building and its subsequent traffic
increase is likely to result in complete 'Gridlock'. There is no space for Road widening at the
junction of Poplar Hill with Combs Lane. The shops on Poplar Hill front directly onto the footpath
and the houses on the opposite side of the road have very small front gardens which do not
allow for any to be annexed for road widening. Due to the existing infrastructure and the lack of
Can you please register that I have spoken to a number of local residents about the 3 land bids,
but specifically the 2 to the west of Poplar Hill. All persons expressed concern over increased
traffic on roads that are inadequate for the current traffic at the main travel times and of course
'school run' times. All additional traffic will be funnelled into Poplar Hill and Edgecomb Road.
Edgecomb Road was originally purely residential with a number of walks off it; these walks do
not have vehicular access which means that these residents park in 'Lay-by' parking areas in
Edgecomb Road, these parking areas allow for vehicles parking at an angle and protruding into
the carriageway of Edgecomb Road. This effectively reduces Edgecomb Road to 'A SINGLE
TRACK ROAD WITH PASSING PLACES' allowing that most households have two vehicles,
(more, if there are adult children living at home or the addition of a 'works vehicle) parking off
road is not possible for everyone. Poplar Hill is wider to the south of Edgar Avenue but narrows
Due to 'permitted' but necessary parking in this area this also is effectively a 'single track road.
The traffic calming platforms have the effect of diverting some traffic into Edgecomb Road,
thereby increasing the problems in that area. The roads leading into the one way system at
Combs Ford are very close to capacity and any significant building and its subsequent traffic
increase is likely to result in complete 'Gridlock'. There is no space for Road widening at the
junction of Poplar Hill with Combs Lane. The shops on Poplar Hill front directly onto the footpath
and the houses on the opposite side of the road have very small front gardens which do not
allow for any to be annexed for road widening. Due to the existing infrastructure and the lack of
Can you please register that I have spoken to a number of local residents about the 3 land bids,
but specifically the 2 to the west of Poplar Hill. All persons expressed concern over increased
traffic on roads that are inadequate for the current traffic at the main travel times and of course
'school run' times. All additional traffic will be funnelled into Poplar Hill and Edgecomb Road.
Edgecomb Road was originally purely residential with a number of walks off it; these walks do
not have vehicular access which means that these residents park in 'Lay-by' parking areas in
Edgecomb Road, these parking areas allow for vehicles parking at an angle and protruding into
the carriageway of Edgecomb Road. This effectively reduces Edgecomb Road to 'A SINGLE
TRACK ROAD WITH PASSING PLACES' allowing that most households have two vehicles,
(more, if there are adult children living at home or the addition of a 'works vehicle) parking off
road is not possible for everyone. Poplar Hill is wider to the south of Edgar Avenue but narrows
Due to 'permitted' but necessary parking in this area this also is effectively a 'single track road.
The traffic calming platforms have the effect of diverting some traffic into Edgecomb Road,
thereby increasing the problems in that area. The roads leading into the one way system at
Combs Ford are very close to capacity and any significant building and its subsequent traffic
increase is likely to result in complete 'Gridlock'. There is no space for Road widening at the
junction of Poplar Hill with Combs Lane. The shops on Poplar Hill front directly onto the footpath
and the houses on the opposite side of the road have very small front gardens which do not
allow for any to be annexed for road widening. Due to the existing infrastructure and the lack of
All those land bids on The Slade are likely to significantly alter the character of the lane which is
a frequently used footpath and bridleway. It has extensive rural views at the Claydon end it is a
natural habitat with significant wildlife present along its length. Any housing would significantly
All those land bids on The Slade are likely to significantly alter the character of the lane which is
a frequently used footpath and bridleway. It has extensive rural views at the Claydon end it is a
natural habitat with significant wildlife present along its length. Any housing would significantly
All those land bids on The Slade are likely to significantly alter the character of the lane which is
a frequently used footpath and bridleway. It has extensive rural views at the Claydon end it is a
natural habitat with significant wildlife present along its length. Any housing would significantly
All those land bids on The Slade are likely to significantly alter the character of the lane which is
a frequently used footpath and bridleway. It has extensive rural views at the Claydon end it is a
natural habitat with significant wildlife present along its length. Any housing would significantly
I have similar comments concerning the most southerly plot next to the redundant Claydon
I have similar comments concerning the most southerly plot next to the redundant Claydon
I have similar comments concerning the most southerly plot next to the redundant Claydon
To the north of the slade is prime agricultural land and given the expected shortfall on food
production should be retained for that purpose.
The area in Great Blakenham off Addison Way used for employment should be conditional on
being visually unobtrustusive, the current warehouse standing on the hill is aesthetically ugly, has
not been screened properly and the light pollution is excessive. It should not be used as a
I have a general comment on any development within the Claydon area and in particular those
fronting Church Lane. Church lane is a single track road and is in gross overload, with a long
history of problems, accidents and resultant damage to property. It is totally unsuitable for the
through traffic that it is currently taking. Much of this traffic is due to displacement, rat running,
and that is likely to increase. The LDF should take steps to provide a proper east/west route for
I have a general comment on any development within the Claydon area and in particular those
fronting Church Lane. Church lane is a single track road and is in gross overload, with a long
history of problems, accidents and resultant damage to property. It is totally unsuitable for the
through traffic that it is currently taking. Much of this traffic is due to displacement, rat running,
and that is likely to increase. The LDF should take steps to provide a proper east/west route for
I have a general comment on any development within the Claydon area and in particular those
fronting Church Lane. Church lane is a single track road and is in gross overload, with a long
history of problems, accidents and resultant damage to property. It is totally unsuitable for the
through traffic that it is currently taking. Much of this traffic is due to displacement, rat running,
and that is likely to increase. The LDF should take steps to provide a proper east/west route for
I have a general comment on any development within the Claydon area and in particular those
fronting Church Lane. Church lane is a single track road and is in gross overload, with a long
history of problems, accidents and resultant damage to property. It is totally unsuitable for the
through traffic that it is currently taking. Much of this traffic is due to displacement, rat running,
and that is likely to increase. The LDF should take steps to provide a proper east/west route for
I have a general comment on any development within the Claydon area and in particular those
fronting Church Lane. Church lane is a single track road and is in gross overload, with a long
history of problems, accidents and resultant damage to property. It is totally unsuitable for the
through traffic that it is currently taking. Much of this traffic is due to displacement, rat running,
and that is likely to increase. The LDF should take steps to provide a proper east/west route for
I have a general comment on any development within the Claydon area and in particular those
fronting Church Lane. Church lane is a single track road and is in gross overload, with a long
history of problems, accidents and resultant damage to property. It is totally unsuitable for the
through traffic that it is currently taking. Much of this traffic is due to displacement, rat running,
and that is likely to increase. The LDF should take steps to provide a proper east/west route for
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct description of the bid
        -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land bid documents
a) Debenham
b) Area outside settlement boundary. Access to this area via Low Road would be impossible
unless huge road works undertaken. This area floods!
Area outside settlement boundary. The only access to this area is via Kenton Road; this would
mean expanding the village into open farmland which is next to both established and newly
Area outside settlement boundary. Again, this would expand the village into open farmland, a
large proportion of which is within the flood plain.
Area outside settlement boundary. Access via Thorpe Lane is very bad and floods regularly.
Areas outside settlement boundary. If the two areas were to be linked (they are adjacent), the
site would be far too big for existing infrastructure. Access to 1lr would have to be incorporated
with access to sites 1h and 3h on either side.
Area outside settlement boundary. This area could only be considered if no residential or
commercial development would be permitted in perpetuity.
Site 2h is the most sustainable site able to accommodate future development. The attached
note proposes a series of revisions to the sustainability appraisal in order to remedy factual
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
a) Debenham
b) NB 5lr - Playing field extension approval.
b) 4h - Residential development within existing SB.
Assuming additional playing field facility if required, this would be the most suitable appropriate
location. Would be in visual contact from school for safety precautions.
d) Would be accessed from Gracechurch Street via New Road crossing point recently installed,
again for safety precautions. Good access for ground maintenance from main road.
d) Would be accessed from Gracechurch Street via New Road crossing point recently installed,
again for safety precautions. Good access for ground maintenance from main road.
d) At the same time, it would make sense if this area could be utilised to also gain access to the
larger area of "landlocked" ground within SB to s w of 4h and would be the most appropriate for
future residential development rather than take up inappropriate greenfield area that are outside
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
c) Not appropriate - NB - 6h & 2h, 2e, X7ob, 1h, 1LB & 3h
Not suitable - greenfield land, ribbon development, isolated location. Far too large for future
needs, excessive traffic generation, existing infrastructure would not cope, significant visual
Greenfield, isolated, well outside SB, significant visual impact and narrow lane access (bad).
Previously considered by Debenham Parish Council as most suitable for extension to Cemetery
as capacity will be reached in few years time (reserve for this). Not suitable for residential use,
access via Aspall Road, very narrow and always busy and crowded by school traffic, etc.
Greenfield land, outside SB, heavy visual impact and infrastructure overload with another 50+
Not suitable as previous comments (1h)
By river, land flood area, infrastructure drainage/sewer would exceed capacity (already such
        a) Debenham
        b) As below
        c) As below
         d) You may find the “Criteria for site selection” that follows helpful)
Outside village boundary. Part of land in flood plain. Busy road with little visability
therefore potentially dangerous to potential “access” to development for both cars and
pedestrians ( including children who would seek to walk to nearby schools and
amenities). Area containing wildlife (some rare). Land potentially spoiling to newly planted
Outside village boundary.
woodland and lake areas. If linked to 1LR – development too large for existing village
Road access limited – if linked to 1H – development too large – see comment above.
infrastructure.
Outside village boundary. Flood plain ?
Outside Village bondary. ? access . Too close to newly planted woodland and lake area
Outside village boundary. Proposed for non residential – would be concerned if at some
later date permission amended to include residential !
Outside village boundary. ? access. Flooding ?
Following your last letter dated 26th November regarding Planning Policy, Site Specific
Allocations Consultations and Local Development Fframework, I write to inform you that my client
Mr J Smith is keen to promote his land as coloured yellow on the attached plan (for identification
The land, as you can see, abuts the existing development boundary and we would like this land
considered during the consultation process.
Can I emphasise the fact please, at the end of the day, that if this site is not favoured as a
housing development prospect, the Council will be left inevitably with an unsatisfactory situation,
due to the existence of massive earth bunds - which are immune from enforcement action, due
This point has featured in discussion/correspondence over the past four years at least - the latest
being with planning officer Lisa Montgomery.
We support the intention to improve the range of facilities (including retail) in Stowmarket to
serve continued housing growth in the town. Whilst the issues and options document refers to
the retail floorspace capacity figures set out in the Core Strategy Submission Document, we
contend that provision should be made to support a new modern footstore in Stowmarket to
assist in clawing back expenditure that is presently leaking to areas outside of the District. On
this basis we object to the conservative approach taken forward identifying retail provision in the
Council's Retail Study (May 2007) as we consider that this does not provide clear and
In addition I have particular concerns about the potential development of the site marked 4h as
   1. Significant impact on traffic generated in a quiet no through Road (Old Stowmarket Road).
   My main concern being the pressure put on the junction at the top of this road, where visibility
   is very poor in one direction, already creating many near misses.
   2. This particular site gets heavily waterlogged in the middle, this in turn feeds the lake and
   protects the buildings lower down the road from flooding, by being a natural fail-safe. A housing
   estate here would create difficulties in severe weather.
   3. Development on this site would significantly impact a colony of bats which hibernate and
   roost around its peripheries and which feed across the area. This site is also the spring /
   summer/ autumn nesting and feeding ground for a large number of geese. There are also large
   numbers of other species of wildlife present in the area due to the lake and ditches surrounding
   the field. Many of which would be lost due to loss of habitat or an increase in environmental,
   4. A large new development would significantly impact on the road in which I and my husband
   live. We bought the house only last year, mainly for the view across open countryside at the
   back. This would be lost. We would also potentially suffer noise nuisance, additional light
In all, I believe that site 4h should not be selected for development due to the factors I have
highlighted above. In addition, a major expansion of Woolpit would be undesirable for all the
residents for the reasons I have given in the first section of my e-mail above. I hope the council
will take my views, which are also those of my husband, into account when making its decision
We write in respect of the proposed playing field in Weybread village and wish to add our
support in full to this idea.
The playing field will provide a safe place for the younger people in the village to play as opposed
to the dangerous situation of playing on the streets - as you may well be aware, there is a severe
speeding problem through the village and children playing on the adjacent pavements is not a
We believe that the village green together with a small close of houses will also be an attractive
benefit especially if these houses contain affordable units for youngsters - there are currently
Our only slight concern about youngsters crossing the road would be alleviated by a pelican
crossing near to the entrance of the area.
Can we please have a playing field in Weybread because.
I go to an athletics club and there is no where for me to practice because I can not play on the
road because it is not safe for me to run around the road. There is nothing to do in Weybread
and there is no place to visit our friends after school or in the holidays.
I would like to play safe.
Can we please have a playing field in Weybread for the following reasons:-
There are 30 children in our village.
Other than our back gardens there is no were to play.
We cannot hold the village inter sports because there is no other place in Weybread to hold
I would like a playing field because:-
If your friend go on holiday you can go and play there.
You can make new friends.
You can learn to ride a bike not on a street.
You can have picnics.
You can play with your friends.
You can run around the field.
I as a child of Weybread would like a playing field for the following reasons:-
1. It will be a safe area for children to meet instead of them meeting by a road.
2. It will also be a good place for children to ride bikes for safety reasons because a little while
ago I fell off my bike whilst cycling on the road and broke my wrist!
3. We also need a centre of the village because at the minute no one knows where the centre is!
4. It will also be safe because it's away from a main road and that there will be a side road
leading to it for easy access.
Please could you consider getting Weybread a playing field because we really need it.
Having viewed the plans of the proposal, I see this as the best opportunity for the village to finally
get a recreation ground for the many children residing in Weybread.
Also if some low cost housing could be included in the development this may allow some of our
younger adults to move out of their parents homes, but stay in the area they grew up in.
I would like to point out that, my family and me live opposite to the proposed housing
development and fully support the Landbid, in the hope that this development can be moved
further forward for the benefit of all the residents of the village.
Please give us a playing field/park it would be good for everyone in the village and it would give
us a chance to do something in the week days after school and in the holidays.
Here are a few suggestions on what we could have there:
a) 7 aside football pitch + 2 goals
b) bike track with big jumps
c) swings
d) slides
e) climbing frame
f) monkey bars
g) any other suggestions from other kids.
So please give us a playing field/park! I hope we get the go ahead for this.
Please could we have a playing field, it would be good for everyone because the nearest park is
in Fressingfield and some people are not allowed there after school.
There is nothing much to do in our village. Please could we have some of the following:
1. A football pitch with two goals (big or small).
2. Park with slides etc.
3. Climbing frame
And lots of other things. PLEASE CAN WE HAVE A PLAYING FIELD.
We're writing to you in support of the proposed development in The Street, Weybread, which
includes a playing field, sports pavilion, an open green and some mixed housing with a meadow.
We consider this move to be long overdue as the village needed a playing field for many years.
It seems to us that a limited development like this will enhance the village and should be a
I'd like a playing field because I think it would be a good place to meet my friends, it would also
be a way to let my parents know I was playing in a safe place and sometimes I get bored in my
small garden so it would be nice to have somewhere else to play. I really think it's a good idea.
I think this development is a great idea, not only because I said for at least ten years that
Weybread needs a playing field but because a small development of mixed housing might mean
that when I leave home I'll be able to afford to carry on living in the village, rather than have to
move to a town as hopefully some of the property will be available to rent.
Can we please have a playing field in Weybread because there are 40 odd children in Weybread
who do not have playing field. Harleston and Fressingfield have one so why can't we. We could
Objections
ENVIRONMENTAL
a) This is a greenfield site.
b) The flood risk in heavy rain, from water run-off the higher land, into Bridewell Lane dwellings,
if this land is developed.
c) Risk of pollution from raw dewage if flooding occurs.
INFRASTRUCTURE
a) Sewage & mains water provision
Over the last seven years there have been significant numbers of houses built in
Botesdale/Rickinghall (approx 80). What is the capacity of the waste treatment plants? When
was plant last updated? Is it adequate? Same for mains water provision.
b) Road access to proposed development
Where would this be? Mill Lane, Botesdale is a narrow lane with passing places and has an
inadequate, dangerous junction with the A143.
The main street: any increase in traffic will exacerbate situations which has already caused car
crashes. Many of the roads accessing into the main street, (eg Bridewell Lane) have obscured
visibility, due to vehicle parking on the pavements and too close to the junctions, and frequent
problems with speeding vehicles transiting the main street. Pedestrians at risk.
c) No requirement for industrial premises
There is already significant modern light industrial provision close by at Diss, Eye, Redgrave,
Palgrave, Stanton, etc.
d) Primary School
Botesdale Primary School is full.
THE WIDER ECONOMIC SITUATION
a)There is no proven need for more housing in Botesdale, in the foreseeable future, given the
general economic slowdown and the slowing of the UK housing market.
PERSONAL
a) Any building on the above site would intrusively overlook my house, and cause noise.
b) Potential flood risk may cause difficulties with house insurance.
c) The value of my house may be adversely affected by this development, for all the above
Flood risk assessment for Ashes Farm area.
Flood risk assessment for Ashes Farm area.
Flood risk assessment for Ashes Farm area.
Many thanks for your quick response on the landbid concerning the field adjoining our property.
I understand that the final draft of the masterplan has not yet been released, although would very
much like to be made aware when this is available for viewing, in order that I can see how we
I would like to add kmy view of the site, in order for this to be taken into consideration when
making any decisions on the use of this land.
From the Ipswich side of the A14, there is only one exit to Stowmarket ie via Tescos, past ICI etc.
When you come down that stretch of road with the ICI industrial buildings on the left, there is at
present a lovely view to the front of 2 large green fields, framed by Combs Wood in the
background. This is especially important as the road from Tescos down to the traffic lights
slopes downwards and the green fields slope upwards, meaning that the fields can be seen right
I feel that it would look hideous to develop more buildings for employment on this site as these
would be the main focus of the primary road into Stowmarket.
Of course the residents of Melford Road and Lavenham Way would not want any type of
employment development on the site, as this will firstly much reduce the value of our properties
and secondly also affect our views and access to the countryside via the current field/bridal way
One further point is what the effect would be on the protected woodland of Combs Wood. Surely
employment/industrial buildings are not suitable next door neighbours for our ancient woodland?
I hope these points will be considered and look forward to hearing from you in due course.
O.k.
Adjacent to services but access to highway is poor and onto dangerous road.
Would diminish value of adjacent wildlife area and extends into the countryside.
Too large - a fundamental change to character of village. Not adjacent to main
Access ok, near enough to centre.
My property "Pinetrees" is a 1960 built small bungalow which sits on approximately 6 acres of
land at Little Green Norton.
Although Norton does not have all the key features for further development it does have 2
church's, a Village Hall with playing fields, a School, a Pub, a Garage, a Shop, a Post Office and
is close to Woolpit Health Centre and Elmswell Train Station and has good access onto the A14
The land that my property sits on is flat-well drained and not prone to flooding and has been lost
to Agriculture for over 50 years.
I believe the site would be ideal for building:
a) Low cost housing or
b) Nursing home or
c) Sheltered accommodation or
d) A council amenity of some description.
For your attention, the Parish Council wish to discuss a bid for the site of the allotments at the
junction of Mill Road and Brettenham Road (about 2 acres) which has advantages over the
Bretlyn Kennels site due to vehicular accessibility and proximity to mains sewer and water.
There has been a dearth of demand for allotments over many years and the site is currently
mainly leased to keep it used (for pheasant rearing). The site is owned by Buxhall Parish
It supports the housing element only on the Bretlyn Kennels site because light industrial
development would be out of keeping in this part of the village that is predominately residential.
It is opposed to the bids for Land to west of Mill Road and land off Rattlesden Road north and
east of Leek Cottage because this would be detrimental to the country landscape being such a
It is opposed to the bids for Land to west of Mill Road and land off Rattlesden Road north and
east of Leek Cottage because this would be detrimental to the country landscape being such a
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        -     the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -     the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -     the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        -     the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        -     the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        -     the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
(Refer to Durrants Land Bid submission - 15th January 2008).
Redefine as L - 4H see Durrants Land Bid Submission.
Omit Grove Farm and Environs., Phased Development in accord with LDF Needs, Linked to 5L
(formerly 5h) see Durrants Land Bid Submission
Redefine as 5L see Durrants Land Bid Submission.
Set for informal 'green' area with vehicular and pedestrian access off Queen Street via
Omit from bid land necessary to provide Stradbroke garage residential development proposals
with adequate offstreet parking. Also delete area of Historic Barn, outbuilding and access from
same location, secure long term retention of 'green space' by long term guardianship to
charitable body including community stakeholders see Durrants Land Bid Submission.
Subject to approval of site L - 4h for housing allocation - delete site 6h see Durrants Land Bid
It has come to our attention that 'land bids' on land adjacent to Fishponds Way, Haughley have
been made on behalf of landowners. The relevant references are 7H, which relates to land at
the rear of Abbeyfields, Haughley and ISV and OB and to the west of Fishponds Way.
The suggestion is that the land should be suitable for residential development, with additional
public open space to the western side of Fishponds way.

We wish to object the abovementioned land bids for the following reasons:

1. Much of the land is very close to the published floodplain.
2. Presently the land forms an open and natural break between Special Landscaped Areas
which follow the watecourse under Fishponds Bridge and the built up area of Haughley.
3. The proposed A14 Haughley Bends works will place additional strain on Fishponds Way, as
the entry into Haughley will no longer be possible at Quarries Cross junction. The use of this
agricultural land for residential development will place additional strain on the road in an area
4. The increase in traffic accessing the village was a concern raised at the Haughley Parish
Council Meeting held on 16th October 2007, where the representative from the Traffic
Department acknowledged that Haughley has already experienced a greater increase in HGV
5. Haughley is an attractive village, the centre of which is a Conservation Area. Building of new
properties along Fishponds Way would detract from the current appearance of the village land
would have a serious impact upon the way of live of those who presently live there.
6. Haughley has been identified with MSDC Core Strategies Report as a Key Service Centre.
Many of the services with Haughley are reliant not only on the local population, but also on the
through traffic to other villages such as Bacton and Cotton. We therefore feel that Haughley has
been wrongly identified within the Core Strategy Report as 'sustaining its own services'. The
7. The use of those identified areas for any form of development would considerably reduce the
residential amenity for the neighbouring properties in both Abbeyfields and Fishponds Way.
Thank you for your letter of 26th November 2007 received today. I am writing on behalf of our
client Mr T W Baldwin on whose behalf we have already made representations for land to be
allocated for housing and employment use around the town of Eye.
The submissions we have made fall under reference numbers 1e (Castleton Way Business Park -
joint bid with Mrs E Moore represented by Durrants), 2h (revision of settlement boundary to the
rear of Langton Grove Farm), L - 6h (land at Castleton Way - part of a mixed use proposal with
1e), and NB -11h (land adjoining Langton Grove Farm).
In respect of the employment submissions, Mid Suffolk District Council had already asked for as
many land owners as possible on Eye Airfield to submit bids. This was on the basis that they
would be considered in totality rather than in competition with each other. You will be aware that
we have also made representations on behalf of the Executors of B J Wyatt (deceased) and C A
As a brownfield site Eye Airfield is certainly suitable for employment development and already
enjoys road links via the A140. Extensive development has already taken place on part of the
airfield owned by Roy Humphrey, as well as new developments at Mid Suffolk Business Park and
Brome Industrial Estate. We feel that Eye Airfield is suitable for this type of development as it
meets both national and regional planning policy, satisfies the sustainability appraisal. When
considered in conjunction with the residential land bid additional infrastructure would be required,
but we believe that this would not have a detrimental impact on the area generally. All of these
In respect of the housing allocation we believe there is scope for housing both in its own right to
satisfy the core strategy target of 80 new dwellings in Eye on previously developed land for the
period 2010 - 2015, but also in conjunction with the land bid for employment use of Eye Airfield.
Again, we have previously made detailed representations about these areas.
The only amendment we would ask is that land bid 2h has been made by this office and not W S
Hall and Partners as indicated on your summary sheet.
I look forward to receiving the first draft of the preferred options document in Spring 2008 and
hope that the Council will view my client's land bids favourably.
In respect of the housing allocation we believe there is scope for housing both in its own right to
satisfy the core strategy target of 80 new dwellings in Eye on previously developed land for the
period 2010 - 2015, but also in conjunction with the land bid for employment use of Eye Airfield.
Again, we have previously made detailed representations about these areas.
The only amendment we would ask is that land bid 2h has been made by this office and not W S
Hall and Partners as indicated on your summary sheet.
I look forward to receiving the first draft of the preferred options document in Spring 2008 and
hope that the Council will view my client's land bids favourably.
In respect of the housing allocation we believe there is scope for housing both in its own right to
satisfy the core strategy target of 80 new dwellings in Eye on previously developed land for the
period 2010 - 2015, but also in conjunction with the land bid for employment use of Eye Airfield.
Again, we have previously made detailed representations about these areas.
The only amendment we would ask is that land bid 2h has been made by this office and not W S
Hall and Partners as indicated on your summary sheet.
I look forward to receiving the first draft of the preferred options document in Spring 2008 and
hope that the Council will view my client's land bids favourably.
Re: Problems in Gipping Road, Great Blakenham (Claydon side of level crossing.
Thank you for your reply of 17th to my letter of 8th April and for the care and attention you have
given to the points raised. While I am disappointed that we have been unable to make any
progress I am pleased to note the research you have done with regard to consultation on
planning applications which I will agree since 2005 has improved. However, our problems
started from 1999 onwards when regretably neither the residents concerned or our Parish
Council were kept well informed. During these years we did have major problems with our
Parish Council almost being non-existant due to departure of members and lack of persons
I have taken your advice that the matters raised now come within the jurisdiction of Highways
rather than yourselves and have therefore requested that a meeting be arranged. I would hope
that either yourself or one of your representatives would also be invited should you wish to attend
As there is no other rural parish in the whole county with such a high level of industrial
development (and even more to come!) I am requesting that Great Blakenham is looked at as a
special case. We urgently need to look at the whole village with a view to keeping residential
and industrial apart. I and other residents are very pleased indeed with Mid Suffolk's
involvement in the relocation of Boltons Waste Paper to a more suitable site as this is very much
a step in the right direction. Would it be possible to obtain extra Government funding for
regeneration? Please let us (Parish Council) and residents and our MP know if there is any way
There is no need for you to reply to this letter as I do not wish to take up any more time and
valuable resources at this point of time. I would however be very obliged if you would keep in
mind the points raised and would ask that future developments in Great Blakenham do take into
account residents' concerns and are used whenever possible to address some of the existing
problems. Given this, new developments will be more readily acceptable and I hope we can
I strongly oppose this site as the only access to 1h from the village of Claydon is at very busy
part of Claydon Church Lane, both for vehicles and pedestrians. The access/junction is opposite
Claydon High School (See notes on page 1) . This site would spoil the view to Claydon Church
from many places in the Gipping Valley including Shrubland Hall. Under the Crime and Disorder
Act fencing to properties along its border with the adjacent, well used, public footpath would
make walking along the footpath a potentially dangerous country walk. Housing would also
This would round off SB. Cedar Tree was destroyed in a storm a few years ago the community
could benefit from this site as it is one of two sites on which a new Community Centre and car
park could be built. (To me this would be second choice). 60% HOUSING 40% COMMUNITY
There is no remotely suitable access to this site, see notes on page 1. It would also further
destroy the countryside aspect of Claydon. Claydon is a village which does not aspire to be a
town, we also need land on which crops can be grown and development of this area would be
This land IS NOT, as stated on the MSDC list, accessible from Ely Road therefore the only
access to this site is not suitable for any further traffic, it is a block paved access road with no
footpath. See notes 6 & 9 on page 1 for further access comments.
We must also maintain the countryside around villages, the close proximity of houses would
destroy valuable habitat for wildlife along the Slade. Under the Crime and Disorder Act fencing
to properties along its border with the Slade would make walking along the track a potentially
dangerous country walk; also this would destroy this very attractive walk.
Site in Barham with traffic and countryside access implications for Claydon. See notes 6 & 9 on
page 1 for access comments. Would spoil the countryside views in the villages of both Barham
and Claydon as this land slopes gently up towards Barham Church. We must also maintain the
countryside around villages, the close proximity of houses would destroy valuable habitat for
wildlife along the Slade and its old pit. Under the Crime and Disorder Act fencing to properties
along its border with the Slade would make walking along the track a potentially dangerous
There is no suitable access to this site for any major development (as it would have to use the
Slade and Claydon Church Lane), although it does abut a very suitable site for a new Community
Centre on the Recreation Ground (accessed via Thornhill Road). Therefore, with careful
negotiations on a gift (to the Community) of a strip fo land to the west of this site a small social
housing scheme could be possible. Any major development would destroy the countryside
aspect of Claydon. It would, if completely developed, set a precedent and also destroy the views

Note the properties are actually bungalows not houses which makes a difference visibility wise
There is no remotely suitable access to this site (see notes on page 1) this land is only accessed
along a public footpath. Development of this site would spoil the view to Claydon Church from
many places in the Gipping Valley including Shrubland Hall. Under the Crime and Disorder Act
fencing to properties along its border with the adjacent, well used, public footpath would make
walking along the footpath a potential danger. Housing would also destroy this very attractive
NOTE the area marked on your map is EAST not West of Old Ipswich Road. This site is
extremely rich in wildlife, especially noted for nightingales and plant life. Access onto Old
Ipswich Road is via an old attractive, but narrow, drive beside the house; it would be a shame to
spoil this. The nature of the site would limit the size of development in this old lime quarry with its
This site is actually in Barham although listed as Claydon. Would spoil the countryside views in
from Kirby Rise Barham towards Shrubland Hall and from the Old Norwich Road as this land
slopes gently up towards Barham Church. The view from Shrubland Hall along the Gipping
Valley would be affected by any development here. Would also spoil the views, rural nature and
setting of Barham Church both to and from the Gipping Valley. This is also valuable farmland
Would round off the village envelope at this point. However, the land is beside the slip road to
the A14 and the A14: if developed in total may not allow a third lane on the east bound A14 dual
carriageway which is desperately needed. (This A14 junction 52 is a heavily used junction
serving the residential area of Claydon, Barham and Great Blakenham and beyond plus the
commercial and business parks in the above villages together with the substantial Lion Barn
The original farm yard and buildings in this area, previously used as a pig farm, has already been
fully developed and there is no reason to continue this onto the surrounding arable land and
erode the green belt towards Ipswich. Current traffic flow to this site is higher than anticipated
therefore we would not like to see the number of vehicles using this site increase any further;
especially as the entrance to this site abuts a bridleway and crosses a national cycle path.
Additionally the route around the original site is not of a higher enough standard to cope with any
This land is beside the slip road to the A14 and the A14; if developed in total may not allow a
third lane on the east bound A14 dual carriageway which is desperately needed. (This A14
Junction 52 is a heavily used junction serving the residential area of Claydon, Barham and Great
Blakenham and beyond plus the commercial and business parks in the above villages together
with substantial Lion Barn Commercial and Business Park at Needham Market). Land is outside
the actual village and we see no reason to erode the green belt and rural aspect of this area.
Under the Crime and Disorder Act fencing to properties along its border with the adjacent, well
used, public footpath would make walking along the footpath potentially dangerous. Housing, or
any development, on this arable land would also destroy this very attractive walk with its
commanding views of the Gipping Valley; this is also part of our green belt. Other than a long
bridleway and public footpath there is a no vehicular access to this site.
Would not want to see building of any kind on this land which is part of green belt in a dark and
unlit area well away from village. Under the Crime and Disorder Act may not be suitable for any
recreation. No legal vehicular access to site.
If levelled could be suitable for much needed football pitches.
Outside SB no legal vehicular access to site, part of green belt should not be developed.
Listed as Land North of Slade, NOTE the land shown on the map is actually EAST of track
leading to the Slade. It is unbelievable that this prime arable land could be considered for
development of any kind, it is part of our countryside and much needed by the entire UK as
Listed as Land North of Slade, NOTE the land shown on the map is actually WEST of track
leading to the Slade. It is unbelievable that this prime arable land could be considered for
development of any kind, it is part of our countryside and much needed by the entire UK as

Land frequently floods, no sensible vehicular access, not suitable for development of any kind.
Our land has been accepted by MSDC as being Brownfield. The definition laid down in
Government Policy, which all local planning authorities should follow, is in Annex B of PPS3:
Housing. Paragraphs 40-44 of PPS3 also calls on regional and local planning authorities to
maximise the use of previously developed land, so that the Government brownfield housing
target is met. The brownfield target for new housing development is set out in the Government's
Strategy for Sustainable Development. This target is for 60% of new or housing to be provided
Our land bid site is situated in MSDC Local Plan Badwell Ash (4B). The centre of Badwell Ash is
approximately 1 mile from the site, and provides a shop, post office, pub, public phone, mobile
shop and services, primary school, village hall/meeting place, church recreation areas and a six
day bus service, as well as a mobile library. It is approximately 2.5 miles away from Elmswell,
which has a seven-day rail service that in turn links to Stowmarket, Cambridge, London and
Elmswelll is considered a key service area within the MSDC Local Dev. Framework Review.
It is our opinion that for centuries, individual houses big or small have been built in rural villages
with absolutely no detriment to others. Why does MSDC feel it is acceptable to remove some
settlement boundaries when clearly there is a need for a small amount of individual houses to be
With reference to the meeting that was held in the village of Stradbroke in November, we would
like to make some comments regarding some of the sites that have been put forward for
We understand that sites 14h and 15lr are owned by the same person and that he has indicated
that if permission were to be granted to build on 14h, he would allow the land that is site 5lr to be
used by the village to extend and improve the sports recreation ground, which would mean that
the village as a whole could benefit from this development.
Should site 8h be developed, then we feel part of this should be used to provide an entrance to
the school and an area where vehicles could be parked safely when children are dropped off.
The parking of vehicles down Queen Street near the school causes problems in the mornings
and late afternoon. The bend just past the school makes it difficult to see around any cars that
are parked. Sites 4h, 5h, 6h and 8h will all increase the traffic in this area, so consideration to
Site 6 could not be developed until either number 4h or 5h had been, leaving access to it. It
would not be possible to get access from Laxfield Road, as it would mean crossing two
footpaths, one of which has only just been completed to give pedestrian access to the cemetery
without having to walk along the road. There is a ditch alll around Drapers Hill and vehicle
access behind the ditch would overlook the gardens along the right hand side of Drapers Hill.
With reference to the meeting that was held in the village of Stradbroke in November, we would
like to make some comments regarding some of the sites that have been put forward for
We understand that sites 14h and 15lr are owned by the same person and that he has indicated
that if permission were to be granted to build on 14h, he would allow the land that is site 5lr to be
used by the village to extend and improve the sports recreation ground, which would mean that
the village as a whole could benefit from this development.
Should site 8h be developed, then we feel part of this should be used to provide an entrance to
the school and an area where vehicles could be parked safely when children are dropped off.
The parking of vehicles down Queen Street near the school causes problems in the mornings
and late afternoon. The bend just past the school makes it difficult to see around any cars that
are parked. Sites 4h, 5h, 6h and 8h will all increase the traffic in this area, so consideration to
Site 6 could not be developed until either number 4h or 5h had been, leaving access to it. It
would not be possible to get access from Laxfield Road, as it would mean crossing two
footpaths, one of which has only just been completed to give pedestrian access to the cemetery
without having to walk along the road. There is a ditch alll around Drapers Hill and vehicle
access behind the ditch would overlook the gardens along the right hand side of Drapers Hill.
With reference to the meeting that was held in the village of Stradbroke in November, we would
like to make some comments regarding some of the sites that have been put forward for
We understand that sites 14h and 15lr are owned by the same person and that he has indicated
that if permission were to be granted to build on 14h, he would allow the land that is site 5lr to be
used by the village to extend and improve the sports recreation ground, which would mean that
the village as a whole could benefit from this development.
Should site 8h be developed, then we feel part of this should be used to provide an entrance to
the school and an area where vehicles could be parked safely when children are dropped off.
The parking of vehicles down Queen Street near the school causes problems in the mornings
and late afternoon. The bend just past the school makes it difficult to see around any cars that
are parked. Sites 4h, 5h, 6h and 8h will all increase the traffic in this area, so consideration to
Site 6 could not be developed until either number 4h or 5h had been, leaving access to it. It
would not be possible to get access from Laxfield Road, as it would mean crossing two
footpaths, one of which has only just been completed to give pedestrian access to the cemetery
without having to walk along the road. There is a ditch alll around Drapers Hill and vehicle
access behind the ditch would overlook the gardens along the right hand side of Drapers Hill.
With reference to the meeting that was held in the village of Stradbroke in November, we would
like to make some comments regarding some of the sites that have been put forward for
We understand that sites 14h and 15lr are owned by the same person and that he has indicated
that if permission were to be granted to build on 14h, he would allow the land that is site 5lr to be
used by the village to extend and improve the sports recreation ground, which would mean that
the village as a whole could benefit from this development.
Should site 8h be developed, then we feel part of this should be used to provide an entrance to
the school and an area where vehicles could be parked safely when children are dropped off.
The parking of vehicles down Queen Street near the school causes problems in the mornings
and late afternoon. The bend just past the school makes it difficult to see around any cars that
are parked. Sites 4h, 5h, 6h and 8h will all increase the traffic in this area, so consideration to
Site 6 could not be developed until either number 4h or 5h had been, leaving access to it. It
would not be possible to get access from Laxfield Road, as it would mean crossing two
footpaths, one of which has only just been completed to give pedestrian access to the cemetery
without having to walk along the road. There is a ditch alll around Drapers Hill and vehicle
access behind the ditch would overlook the gardens along the right hand side of Drapers Hill.
With reference to the meeting that was held in the village of Stradbroke in November, we would
like to make some comments regarding some of the sites that have been put forward for
We understand that sites 14h and 15lr are owned by the same person and that he has indicated
that if permission were to be granted to build on 14h, he would allow the land that is site 5lr to be
used by the village to extend and improve the sports recreation ground, which would mean that
the village as a whole could benefit from this development.
Should site 8h be developed, then we feel part of this should be used to provide an entrance to
the school and an area where vehicles could be parked safely when children are dropped off.
The parking of vehicles down Queen Street near the school causes problems in the mornings
and late afternoon. The bend just past the school makes it difficult to see around any cars that
are parked. Sites 4h, 5h, 6h and 8h will all increase the traffic in this area, so consideration to
Site 6 could not be developed until either number 4h or 5h had been, leaving access to it. It
would not be possible to get access from Laxfield Road, as it would mean crossing two
footpaths, one of which has only just been completed to give pedestrian access to the cemetery
without having to walk along the road. There is a ditch alll around Drapers Hill and vehicle
access behind the ditch would overlook the gardens along the right hand side of Drapers Hill.
With reference to the meeting that was held in the village of Stradbroke in November, we would
like to make some comments regarding some of the sites that have been put forward for
We understand that sites 14h and 15lr are owned by the same person and that he has indicated
that if permission were to be granted to build on 14h, he would allow the land that is site 5lr to be
used by the village to extend and improve the sports recreation ground, which would mean that
the village as a whole could benefit from this development.
Should site 8h be developed, then we feel part of this should be used to provide an entrance to
the school and an area where vehicles could be parked safely when children are dropped off.
The parking of vehicles down Queen Street near the school causes problems in the mornings
and late afternoon. The bend just past the school makes it difficult to see around any cars that
are parked. Sites 4h, 5h, 6h and 8h will all increase the traffic in this area, so consideration to
Site 6 could not be developed until either number 4h or 5h had been, leaving access to it. It
would not be possible to get access from Laxfield Road, as it would mean crossing two
footpaths, one of which has only just been completed to give pedestrian access to the cemetery
without having to walk along the road. There is a ditch alll around Drapers Hill and vehicle
access behind the ditch would overlook the gardens along the right hand side of Drapers Hill.
This site may be considered to be the best as:
a) It has easy access to Redgrave road (B1113).
b) The land slopes towards the Redgrave Road and will not cause flooding to the school or any adjoining hou
c) Houses built on the land will not overlook existing properties.
We have attached letters to Mid Suffolk District Council (Dec 12th, 2003 and October 10th, 2007)
when the subject was aired - key points are as follows:
1. The field at the bottom of our property slopes towards our house and could cause flooding.
2. To add to this fear - our property lies approximately 5-7 feet below the level of the field 1e,
and our garden slopes down to our house.
3. We will be seriously overlooked by houses built near our boundary fence.
4. We were assured by your staff that no development would take place on the land mentioned
above - on this basis we purchased our current property.
Consultee attached previous correspondence dated Dec 2003 and Oct 2007 raising similar
issues in relation to site 1e.
We are writing to you in order to express our very serious concern about the many current land
bids currently being considered in relation to the village of Botesdale. In particular, we wish to
register a very strong objection to the proposal number 1h on your map TM07SWZ. We note
there are three areas under bid 1h, but the one we are definitely objecting to is the largest of
them, running along Diss Road itself, at the entrance of Botesdale, opposite Tollgate House and
Redgrave Lake. This letter and response form follows a telephone conversation expressing our
worry to your Mr. David McArdy. In that conversation he suggested putting our points down in a
letter as well as the form, and that our comments would be read, noted and taken into serious
This particular proposal to build houses along the main road would be totally damaging to the
current pleasant and appealing outlook as one first enters Botesdale from the Diss direction, and
exit from the Rickinghall direction. This area is right at the edge of an existing conservation area,
and is historically hugely important to the village of Botesdale. In fact, when Botesdale was
bypassed some years ago, the area we speak of was then considered to precious and special by
Mid Suffolk District Council that a feature was going to be made there in the form of a gate. This
was going to symbolise and emphasise the existing beautiful view at the entrance and exit to and
from Botesdale. It seems to us beyond belief that this self same area is now deemed even
We live in Tollgate House Botesdale, which is one of the most important historical buildings in
the village, and indeed is Grade 11 listed. The historical significance of the house in terms of the
heritage of Botesdale is because that for over two centuries it has been the first house one sees
on entering the village, and the last building one passes when leaving the village. We are
custodians of this house whilst we live here, and to think that its significance in its situation for
nearly 250 years could be eroded by having numerous new houses opposite and beyond it is
        Tollgate House (or the Round House as it is also colloquially known) is what it says it is - it
        is in the exact spot where the old turnpike road once ran, and was built and used to collect
        the tolls from passing traffic for many years. It was designed, built and located to serve
        the purpose of being the first house one has to pass in order to enter or leave the village.
        In effect, the Toll house and the exact area where it stands IS the entrance and the exit
        for Botesdale. To effectively nullify this by allowing a myriad of other houses further along
        the road going towards Diss, (ie elongating the village) would, in our opinions, be terribly
In addition, the proposed buildings would also infringe on the overall view of another historically
important view - that of Redgrave Halll and Lake. Indeed, we would like to make you aware that
this whole area was designed and landscaped by Capability Brown, including the original hall,
lake, grounds and the listed Toll house we have referred to. There are also some ancient
chestnut trees that stand on the corner of the junction of the entry/exit to Botesdale that should
not in any way be infringed upon and spoilt by new housing. The heritage of this area around
the old turnpike, Toll house and views out to the hall and lake would be badly damaged forever if
We have spoken to our near neighbours here, and we are all horrified at the prospect of the
damage that a mass of new building would do to the overall current beautiful and historically
important part of our village. We totally understand that there will always be a need for new
housing, but there are other areas within the villages of Botesdale and Rickinghall that are more
suited to new build. In particular, consideration should be given to the area between the bypass
and the centre of Botesdale. We ask you please to consider all of our concerns very carefully,
In closing, could we please ask you to confirm to us that this letter expressing our opposition to
the land bid 1h together with our response form has been received? You can email us at
eileenandpeter@waitrose.com or write to us.
MOST APPROPRIATE - 1e, and any area between the bypass and the centre of Botesdale. We
deem it more appropriate to extend Botesdale WIDTHWISE, rather than LENGTHWISE.
LEAST APPROPRIATE - 1h & 2h.
We object to new build in this area because of the detrimental effect this will have on an area of
great natural beauty and again because of it's close visual proximity to the existing beauty of the
Capability Brown designed Redgrave Hall, lake and landscaping.
It has fallen to me to request that you ensure that the factual errors in your present documents
are rectified. The areas are:
a) Reference inset 55a.8h. Parish recorded as Needham Market. This land is in fact in
Creeting St Mary therefore surely it should be in inset 22a & b?
b) Reference inset 55a.8h. This land has been subject to a change of ownership and is now
held in joint ownership. Surely a development bid cannot be made other than on behalf of the

c) Reference inset 55a. NB - 13ob. The parish is I believe Coddenham.
d) Reference inset 22a & b.2h, 5h & 5lr. The parish is CSM (Jacks Green) which is not a
'secondary village'.
Thank you for your letter and enclosures concerning the above. As I explained in our telephone
conversation, the meeting at Woolpit Business Park earlier this month follows a number of
previous meetings, some including officers from Mid-Suffolk District Council, when options to
submit a planning application for a lorry park have been discussed before. This application has
already been considered by Suffolk County Council to be an acceptable option, subject to detail,
For your information, you may find the following background useful. Since 2005, Suffolk County
Council has taken action to improve existing and promote the development of new lorry parks
alongside the trunk road network. In the absence of a government policy to provide or
encourage the development of new sites, goods vehicles use trunk road lay-bys and the county
road network to provide the rest areas required. You will be aware of the areas within the Mid-
Suffolk District where lorries currently park up overnight, and this is repeated alongside the A14
Suffolk County Council's approach to the promotion of a series of new/existing lorry parks
alongside the trunk road network has been two-fold.
a) To establish the current need, in terms of spaces, facilities required and most suitable
b) To establish a series of potential new and appropriately located existing lorry parks alongside
the A14 and A11, to be promoted and developed as a network of sites.
In 2005 I met officers at district planning authorities along the A14 with a view to raise awareness
of Suffolk County Council's work in this area and to establish any planning preferences and any
current land allocations within each Local Plan. Mid-Suffolk District Council at that time
expressed an interest in the provision of a lorry park alongside the A 14, and the enquiries made
at that time by Woolpit Business Park to provide a new facility were discussed.
In 2006 Suffolk County Council forwarded details of the HGV Parking survey and its suggestion
for Mid-Suffolk District Council to include the Woolpit site and a further site at the back of Beacon
Hill Service area. Further correspondence last year, in response to the District Council Local
Development Framework Core Strategy consultation, confirmed Suffolk County Council's request
that the development of lorry park sites alongside the A14 is included as a policy and the
The HGV parking survey in 2006 established that there is a current demand, on the A14 for
around 165 spaces between the Cambridgeshire border and Bury St Edmunds, 170 between
Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich and 150 between Ipswich and Felixstowe. Therefore we can say
that there is evidence of a need for lorry parking facilities to accommodate up to 200 in the Mid-
Suffolk District area now. Given the potential 75% increase in goods vehicle movements by
2021 due to the South Felixstowe regeneration, any facilities provided should be built with a view
There is a further need for new lorry parks alongside the A14. You will be aware of the current
arrangements in place for Operation Stack. However, the long-term aim is that permanent lorry
park facilities alongside the A14 will provide off-road areas where Suffolk Police can direct
vehicles to park. This will cause minimal disruption to other A14 and local road traffic, and
Driving hours regulations introduced in April 2007 require goods vehicle drivers to take 45 minute
breaks every 4.5 hours driven, to take 11 hours daily rest and to limit their driving to 56 hours
each week. Fines and the possibility of prison sentences can be applied if drivers break these
rules. This has been taken into account by Suffolk County Council, and for this reason, it is
suggested that facilities alongside the trunk road should be spaced no greater than 30 miles
apart, to ensure that drivers can reach an off-road rest area before their driving hours cease. If
there are insufficient parking areas or they are spaced too far apart, drivers will continue to use
As any new facility built will be privately funded, it will need to be of a size that is commercially
viable. I understand from Nightowl, who manages four lorry parks in the UK, that for sites to be
viable, they need to be built to accommodate 250 vehicles a night.
Highways Agency has been involved throughout Suffolk County Council's development of a
countywide network of suggested lorry parks. I understand that their preference is for new sites
to be located so that they are accessed/exited via an existing trunk road junction, to minimise the
construction of new junctions off the trunk road. I have asked Highways Agency to provide their
views regarding the Creeting St Peter land bid, and will forward their response when received.
Given the above information, my initial views regarding the Creeting St Peter land bid is that :
a) Whilst the site is adjacent to the A14, it is alongside a section where there is currently no
junction with the A14, and the proposal would therefore require new access/exit. The site would
only be accessible to eastbournd traffic, limiting its use. The views of the Highways Agency will
offer further comment on these points. I suggest it would be preferable for sites to be developed
where they can be accessed from both east and west bound carriageway, and located adjacent
b) The A14 is in a cutting at this location, and this may also pose access and exit difficulties.
This may make the site visually intrusive.
c) The site is close by the current lorry parking area at the back of the Beacon Hill Service Area.
In comparison, the location and access here is preferable and has been suggested by County
Council as a site option within the District Council's Local Development Framework.
d) The plans submitted in June 2006 by the client suggest the land bid offers in total 39 lorry
spaces. This is not a sufficient number to cater for the current demand between Bury St
Edmunds and Ipswich and will be unable to accommodate the expected growing demand.
Further sites or expansion of this site would therefore be required. I would also query the sites
commercial viability given its proposed size. I suggest it would be preferable for sites to be
e) In terms of parking spaces, the Creeting St Peter site would offer facilities where there is
currently none, but I believe the two options suggested by Suffolk County Council have the
potential to offer better spaced and strategically sited locations, as part of a series of facilities
Thank you for your letter and enclosures concerning the above. As I explained in our telephone
conversation, the meeting at Woolpit Business Park earlier this month follows a number of
previous meetings, some including officers from Mid-Suffolk District Council, when options to
submit a planning application for a lorry park have been discussed before. This application has
already been considered by Suffolk County Council to be an acceptable option, subject to detail,
For your information, you may find the following background useful. Since 2005, Suffolk County
Council has taken action to improve existing and promote the development of new lorry parks
alongside the trunk road network. In the absence of a government policy to provide or
encourage the development of new sites, goods vehicles use trunk road lay-bys and the county
road network to provide the rest areas required. You will be aware of the areas within the Mid-
Suffolk District where lorries currently park up overnight, and this is repeated alongside the A14
Suffolk County Council's approach to the promotion of a series of new/existing lorry parks
alongside the trunk road network has been two-fold.
a) To establish the current need, in terms of spaces, facilities required and most suitable
b) To establish a series of potential new and appropriately located existing lorry parks alongside
the A14 and A11, to be promoted and developed as a network of sites.
In 2005 I met officers at district planning authorities along the A14 with a view to raise awareness
of Suffolk County Council's work in this area and to establish any planning preferences and any
current land allocations within each Local Plan. Mid-Suffolk District Council at that time
expressed an interest in the provision of a lorry park alongside the A 14, and the enquiries made
at that time by Woolpit Business Park to provide a new facility were discussed.
In 2006 Suffolk County Council forwarded details of the HGV Parking survey and its suggestion
for Mid-Suffolk District Council to include the Woolpit site and a further site at the back of Beacon
Hill Service area. Further correspondence last year, in response to the District Council Local
Development Framework Core Strategy consultation, confirmed Suffolk County Council's request
that the development of lorry park sites alongside the A14 is included as a policy and the
The HGV parking survey in 2006 established that there is a current demand, on the A14 for
around 165 spaces between the Cambridgeshire border and Bury St Edmunds, 170 between
Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich and 150 between Ipswich and Felixstowe. Therefore we can say
that there is evidence of a need for lorry parking facilities to accommodate up to 200 in the Mid-
Suffolk District area now. Given the potential 75% increase in goods vehicle movements by
2021 due to the South Felixstowe regeneration, any facilities provided should be built with a view
There is a further need for new lorry parks alongside the A14. You will be aware of the current
arrangements in place for Operation Stack. However, the long-term aim is that permanent lorry
park facilities alongside the A14 will provide off-road areas where Suffolk Police can direct
vehicles to park. This will cause minimal disruption to other A14 and local road traffic, and
Driving hours regulations introduced in April 2007 require goods vehicle drivers to take 45 minute
breaks every 4.5 hours driven, to take 11 hours daily rest and to limit their driving to 56 hours
each week. Fines and the possibility of prison sentences can be applied if drivers break these
rules. This has been taken into account by Suffolk County Council, and for this reason, it is
suggested that facilities alongside the trunk road should be spaced no greater than 30 miles
apart, to ensure that drivers can reach an off-road rest area before their driving hours cease. If
there are insufficient parking areas or they are spaced too far apart, drivers will continue to use
As any new facility built will be privately funded, it will need to be of a size that is commercially
viable. I understand from Nightowl, who manages four lorry parks in the UK, that for sites to be
viable, they need to be built to accommodate 250 vehicles a night.
Highways Agency has been involved throughout Suffolk County Council's development of a
countywide network of suggested lorry parks. I understand that their preference is for new sites
to be located so that they are accessed/exited via an existing trunk road junction, to minimise the
construction of new junctions off the trunk road. I have asked Highways Agency to provide their
views regarding the Creeting St Peter land bid, and will forward their response when received.
Given the above information, my initial views regarding the Creeting St Peter land bid is that :
a) Whilst the site is adjacent to the A14, it is alongside a section where there is currently no
junction with the A14, and the proposal would therefore require new access/exit. The site would
only be accessible to eastbournd traffic, limiting its use. The views of the Highways Agency will
offer further comment on these points. I suggest it would be preferable for sites to be developed
where they can be accessed from both east and west bound carriageway, and located adjacent
b) The A14 is in a cutting at this location, and this may also pose access and exit difficulties.
This may make the site visually intrusive.
c) The site is close by the current lorry parking area at the back of the Beacon Hill Service Area.
In comparison, the location and access here is preferable and has been suggested by County
Council as a site option within the District Council's Local Development Framework.
d) The plans submitted in June 2006 by the client suggest the land bid offers in total 39 lorry
spaces. This is not a sufficient number to cater for the current demand between Bury St
Edmunds and Ipswich and will be unable to accommodate the expected growing demand.
Further sites or expansion of this site would therefore be required. I would also query the sites
commercial viability given its proposed size. I suggest it would be preferable for sites to be
e) In terms of parking spaces, the Creeting St Peter site would offer facilities where there is
currently none, but I believe the two options suggested by Suffolk County Council have the
potential to offer better spaced and strategically sited locations, as part of a series of facilities
Thank you for your letter and enclosures concerning the above. As I explained in our telephone
conversation, the meeting at Woolpit Business Park earlier this month follows a number of
previous meetings, some including officers from Mid-Suffolk District Council, when options to
submit a planning application for a lorry park have been discussed before. This application has
already been considered by Suffolk County Council to be an acceptable option, subject to detail,
For your information, you may find the following background useful. Since 2005, Suffolk County
Council has taken action to improve existing and promote the development of new lorry parks
alongside the trunk road network. In the absence of a government policy to provide or
encourage the development of new sites, goods vehicles use trunk road lay-bys and the county
road network to provide the rest areas required. You will be aware of the areas within the Mid-
Suffolk District where lorries currently park up overnight, and this is repeated alongside the A14
Suffolk County Council's approach to the promotion of a series of new/existing lorry parks
alongside the trunk road network has been two-fold.
a) To establish the current need, in terms of spaces, facilities required and most suitable
b) To establish a series of potential new and appropriately located existing lorry parks alongside
the A14 and A11, to be promoted and developed as a network of sites.
In 2005 I met officers at district planning authorities along the A14 with a view to raise awareness
of Suffolk County Council's work in this area and to establish any planning preferences and any
current land allocations within each Local Plan. Mid-Suffolk District Council at that time
expressed an interest in the provision of a lorry park alongside the A 14, and the enquiries made
at that time by Woolpit Business Park to provide a new facility were discussed.
In 2006 Suffolk County Council forwarded details of the HGV Parking survey and its suggestion
for Mid-Suffolk District Council to include the Woolpit site and a further site at the back of Beacon
Hill Service area. Further correspondence last year, in response to the District Council Local
Development Framework Core Strategy consultation, confirmed Suffolk County Council's request
that the development of lorry park sites alongside the A14 is included as a policy and the
The HGV parking survey in 2006 established that there is a current demand, on the A14 for
around 165 spaces between the Cambridgeshire border and Bury St Edmunds, 170 between
Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich and 150 between Ipswich and Felixstowe. Therefore we can say
that there is evidence of a need for lorry parking facilities to accommodate up to 200 in the Mid-
Suffolk District area now. Given the potential 75% increase in goods vehicle movements by
2021 due to the South Felixstowe regeneration, any facilities provided should be built with a view
There is a further need for new lorry parks alongside the A14. You will be aware of the current
arrangements in place for Operation Stack. However, the long-term aim is that permanent lorry
park facilities alongside the A14 will provide off-road areas where Suffolk Police can direct
vehicles to park. This will cause minimal disruption to other A14 and local road traffic, and
Driving hours regulations introduced in April 2007 require goods vehicle drivers to take 45 minute
breaks every 4.5 hours driven, to take 11 hours daily rest and to limit their driving to 56 hours
each week. Fines and the possibility of prison sentences can be applied if drivers break these
rules. This has been taken into account by Suffolk County Council, and for this reason, it is
suggested that facilities alongside the trunk road should be spaced no greater than 30 miles
apart, to ensure that drivers can reach an off-road rest area before their driving hours cease. If
there are insufficient parking areas or they are spaced too far apart, drivers will continue to use
As any new facility built will be privately funded, it will need to be of a size that is commercially
viable. I understand from Nightowl, who manages four lorry parks in the UK, that for sites to be
viable, they need to be built to accommodate 250 vehicles a night.
Highways Agency has been involved throughout Suffolk County Council's development of a
countywide network of suggested lorry parks. I understand that their preference is for new sites
to be located so that they are accessed/exited via an existing trunk road junction, to minimise the
construction of new junctions off the trunk road. I have asked Highways Agency to provide their
views regarding the Creeting St Peter land bid, and will forward their response when received.
Given the above information, my initial views regarding the Creeting St Peter land bid is that :
a) Whilst the site is adjacent to the A14, it is alongside a section where there is currently no
junction with the A14, and the proposal would therefore require new access/exit. The site would
only be accessible to eastbournd traffic, limiting its use. The views of the Highways Agency will
offer further comment on these points. I suggest it would be preferable for sites to be developed
where they can be accessed from both east and west bound carriageway, and located adjacent
b) The A14 is in a cutting at this location, and this may also pose access and exit difficulties.
This may make the site visually intrusive.
c) The site is close by the current lorry parking area at the back of the Beacon Hill Service Area.
In comparison, the location and access here is preferable and has been suggested by County
Council as a site option within the District Council's Local Development Framework.
d) The plans submitted in June 2006 by the client suggest the land bid offers in total 39 lorry
spaces. This is not a sufficient number to cater for the current demand between Bury St
Edmunds and Ipswich and will be unable to accommodate the expected growing demand.
Further sites or expansion of this site would therefore be required. I would also query the sites
commercial viability given its proposed size. I suggest it would be preferable for sites to be
e) In terms of parking spaces, the Creeting St Peter site would offer facilities where there is
currently none, but I believe the two options suggested by Suffolk County Council have the
potential to offer better spaced and strategically sited locations, as part of a series of facilities
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.

Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
       description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
       description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed use, etc)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
       description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
       -      the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
       -      the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course.
John Oakenfold – Chilton Leys Barn, Forest Road, Onehouse, IP14 3EN

Consultee submitted an 8 page letter giving reasons why Stowmarket sites 9h and 27h do not
meet the criteria for successful site selection. The key points are summarised below under
headings taken from the Council‟s „Site Selection Criteria‟ handout.

1). Is there a need for the proposed development:?
Accepts the need for more and better opportunities at the broad locations indicated in the Core
Strategy but disagrees with the Specific Sites because
· Ignores the Onehouse Parish Plan/ Village Appraisal
· Brownfield land should have priority over Greenfield sites despite easier deliverability at the
latter
2). Are there general policy or sustainability considerations?
· Neither site falls within a boundary of a Town, Key Service Centre or Primary Village
· Contrary to Green Open Space Strategy requiring protection of rural landscape between
Stowmarket and Onehouse.
· Loss of greenspace in this area will result in loss of recreational space for the residents of
Onehouse and the west side of Stowmarket
· 9h is part of historical Onehouse containing the „Paupers Graves‟

 3). Are there Specific Policy or Sustainability Constraints?
 · (Although not designated) both areas are Special Landscape and Visually Important Open
 Space in any half sensible person‟s meaning of the notions
 · Sites are much used for informal recreation that needs to remain at current size and scale to
 absorb both current and future users comfortably
 · 9h will intrude into the countryside and into an employment site as well asprejudice existing
 agicultural operations. Any substitute industrial facilities will surely be „ribbon development‟
 adjacent to the A14
 · Character and identity of Onehouse will not withstand westward development in the same way
 that Cedars Park has impacted on Stowupland as reported by consultants in the Stowmarket
 Masterplan
 · Chilton Fields is home to a large variety of fauna (lists avian and mammalian species) that
 inhabit the trees, woodland and scrub areas. Any development in this area will threaten the
 4). Are there likely to be significant Impacts from proposed development?
 Raises infrastructure queries in relation to:-
 · Parameters for highway access to southern boundaries
 · Impact to existing dwellings, Northfield woods and adjacent agriculture from disrupted land
 drains
 · Impact of delivery and other traffic from further urbanisation
 · Impact and degradation of footpaths, bridleways, farm tracks and general landscape and
 views
 · Loss of residential amenity (new and existing) from light and noise pollution from any
 relocation of the recreation grounds
John Oakenfold – Chilton Leys Barn, Forest Road, Onehouse, IP14 3EN

Consultee submitted an 8 page letter giving reasons why Stowmarket sites 9h and 27h do not
meet the criteria for successful site selection. The key points are summarised below under
headings taken from the Council‟s „Site Selection Criteria‟ handout.
1). Is there a need for the proposed development:?
Accepts the need for more and better opportunities at the broad locations indicated in the Core
Strategy but disagrees with the Specific Sites because
· Ignores the Onehouse Parish Plan/ Village Appraisal
· Brownfield land should have priority over Greenfield sites despite easier deliverability at the
latter
2). Are there general policy or sustainability considerations?
· Neither site falls within a boundary of a Town, Key Service Centre or Primary Village
· Contrary to Green Open Space Strategy requiring protection of rural landscape between
Stowmarket and Onehouse.
· Loss of greenspace in this area will result in loss of recreational space for the residents of
Onehouse and the west side of Stowmarket
· 9h is part of historical Onehouse containing the „Paupers Graves‟

 3). Are there Specific Policy or Sustainability Constraints?
 · (Although not designated) both areas are Special Landscape and Visually Important Open
 Space in any half sensible person‟s meaning of the notions
 · Sites are much used for informal recreation that needs to remain at current size and scale to
 absorb both current and future users comfortably
 · 9h will intrude into the countryside and into an employment site as well asprejudice existing
 agicultural operations. Any substitute industrial facilities will surely be „ribbon development‟
 adjacent to the A14
 · Character and identity of Onehouse will not withstand westward development in the same way
 that Cedars Park has impacted on Stowupland as reported by consultants in the Stowmarket
 Masterplan
 · Chilton Fields is home to a large variety of fauna (lists avian and mammalian species) that
 inhabit the trees, woodland and scrub areas. Any development in this area will threaten the
   4). Are there likely to be significant Impacts from proposed development?
   Raises infrastructure queries in relation to:-
   · Parameters for highway access to southern boundaries
   · Impact to existing dwellings, Northfield woods and adjacent agriculture from disrupted land
   drains
   · Impact of delivery and other traffic from further urbanisation
   · Impact and degradation of footpaths, bridleways, farm tracks and general landscape and
   views
   · Loss of residential amenity (new and existing) from light and noise pollution from any
   relocation of the recreation grounds
   3h Proposals for extending building in this area were rejected at a planning inquiry in
   September 1995. Since then „On street parking‟ has become an issue and the paving of front
   gardens has increased run-off and causes local flooding, including raw sewage This casts
   doubts on the adequacy of the infrastructure and the need for mitigation plus landscape and
4h Short Plantation is 160 year old extension to Long plantation with mature woodland trees with
high wildlife potential and the Mid Suffolk Landscape Officer has stated intention to serve a TPO
if it is threatened. There are 2 ponds on the northern edge listed in the County Archaeological
Sites and Monuments Records. It is the least acceptable site.
Site offers an opportunity for sustained development in the plan period. They are adjacent to the
local doctors surgery, closer to public transport links than sites on the North West part of the
village. The scale of development may be better able to support improvements to the
infrastructure with potential to benefit the whole town. Small scale developments are unlikely to
Site offers an opportunity for sustained development in the plan period. They are adjacent to the
local doctors surgery, closer to public transport links than sites on the North West part of the
village. The scale of development may be better able to support improvements to the
infrastructure with potential to benefit the whole town. Small scale developments are unlikely to
          Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
          description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
          - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
          - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
          The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
          land bid documents and will be considered in due course

 Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
 description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
 - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
 - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
 The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
 bid documents and will be considered in due course

 Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
 description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
 - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
 - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
 The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
 bid documents and will be considered in due course
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
- the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
- the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course

Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
- the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
- the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
bid documents and will be considered in due course

    Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
    description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
    - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
    - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
    The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
    land bid documents and will be considered in due course

        Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or
        correct description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
        The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the
        ongoing land bid documents and will be considered in due course

        Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or
        correct description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
        The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the
        ongoing land bid documents and will be considered in due course

    Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
    description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
    - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
    - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
    The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
    land bid documents and will be considered in due course
 Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
 description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
 - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
 - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
 The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
 bid documents and will be considered in due course

 Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
 description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
 - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
 - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
 The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
 bid documents and will be considered in due course

 Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
 description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
 - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
 - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
 The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
 bid documents and will be considered in due course

 Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and / or correct
 description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
 - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
 - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
 The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing land
 bid documents and will be considered in due course

Diputes Sustainability Appraisal score on the grounds that it is scored for the wrong proposed
site use and encloses a copy of the relevant part of the SA with revised scores, asks for these
comments to be added to the submitted representations.
Sites not recommended.
One major problem is access since the land in question is surrounded by domestic properties.

a) It would have detrimental effects on traffic generation and the environment (roads in this area

Debenham has recently had a large scale housing development, not yet complete and with
houses not yet sold. The village has one of the best High Schools in the country which is now



The possible access runs across private land but has a severe visibility problem opening blindly
on to a main thoroughfare. There is a house blocking any view from one side and a 6ft brick wall
blocks the other view. There is also pond, wildlife and protected native trees.
              Officer's
Outcome
          Recommendation
correct description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:



ongoing land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
ding future of middle school opposite.
th nearby houses.


th on B1113 and road is narrow and dangerous.
.
th-east of Stowmarket);
th-east of Stowmarket);

 unacceptable landscape impact.
th-east of Stowmarket);
nd should therefore continue to fulfill this function.

ouring industrial uses.
correct description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:



ongoing land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
he school or any adjoining houses.
Item             ID / Name               Organisation
   167 Philip Raiswell       Sport England
                             Sport England

  167 Philip Raiswell
                             Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council



  232 Peggy Fuller
                             Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council




  232 Peggy Fuller
                             Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council

  232 Peggy Fuller
                             Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council




  232 Peggy Fuller
                             Clerk - Woolpit Parish Council
  232 Peggy Fuller
                             Viridor Waste Management Ltd.

  236 Mick Oliver
                             Clerk - Metfield Parish Council
  257 Lesley Silvester
                             Clerk - Metfield Parish Council
  257 Lesley Silvester

  259 Daniel Marsh



  259 Daniel Marsh
259 Daniel Marsh




259 Daniel Marsh




277 Ray Taylor




277 Ray Taylor


277 Ray Taylor




277 Ray Taylor




277 Ray Taylor


277 Ray Taylor



277 Ray Taylor
278 Mrs Janet M Helyar




278 Mrs Janet M Helyar




278 Mrs Janet M Helyar



278 Mrs Janet M Helyar
                         Secretary - Debenham W I


280 Anne Packer
                         Secretary - Debenham W I


280 Anne Packer
                         Secretary - Debenham W I

280 Anne Packer
                         Secretary - Debenham W I

280 Anne Packer
                         Secretary - Debenham W I



280 Anne Packer
                      Secretary - Debenham W I

280 Anne Packer
                      Secretary - Debenham W I



280 Anne Packer
                      DPP




311 Laurence Holmes
                      DPP




311 Laurence Holmes
                      DPP




311 Laurence Holmes
                      DPP




311 Laurence Holmes
                      DPP




311 Laurence Holmes
                          DPP




311 Laurence Holmes
                          DPP


311 Laurence Holmes
                          Stowmarket Town Council




313 Michelle Mackintosh
                          Stowmarket Town Council




313 Michelle Mackintosh
313 Michelle Mackintosh   Stowmarket Town Council
                          Stowmarket Town Council


313 Michelle Mackintosh
                          Stowmarket Town Council




313 Michelle Mackintosh
317 Keith Willetts




317 Keith Willetts
317 Keith Willetts

317 Keith Willetts



321 Ann Reynolds



321 Ann Reynolds
321 Ann Reynolds



321 Ann Reynolds




321 Ann Reynolds




321 Ann Reynolds




321 Ann Reynolds




321 Ann Reynolds
                     Anglian Water




322 Gary Parsons
                     Clerk - Coddenham Parish Council


335 Mrs S Groom
                     Clerk - Coddenham Parish Council

335 Mrs S Groom
                     Clerk - Coddenham Parish Council
335 Mrs S Groom
                     Clerk - Coddenham Parish Council

335 Mrs S Groom
                     Clerk - Coddenham Parish Council




335 Mrs S Groom
                     Clerk - Gt Finborough Parish Council


338 Lucinda Rogers
                     Clerk - Gt Finborough Parish Council

338 Lucinda Rogers
                     Old Newton Parish Council



339 Mike Shave
                     Creeting St Mary Parish Council


339 Roger Coton
                     Clerk - Buxhall Parish Council




341 Malcolm Baker
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA




344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
344 Natalie Blaken   EEDA
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken
                     EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                                EEDA


344 Natalie Blaken
344 Natalie Blaken              EEDA
                                EEDA




344 Natalie Blaken
                                EEDA
344 Natalie Blaken
                                EEDA

344 Natalie Blaken


347 Twiggy Davis




347 Twiggy Davis



347 Twiggy Davis


347 Twiggy Davis




    Mrs L Mr & Mrs Scott & Mr
348 & Mrs Hudson
                                TWGAZE



349 Oliver Chapman
                     TWGAZE




349 Oliver Chapman
                     TWGAZE




349 Oliver Chapman
                     TWGAZE




349 Oliver Chapman
                     TWGAZE




349 Oliver Chapman
                     TWGAZE
349 Oliver Chapman
                     TWGAZE


349 Oliver Chapman




350 Mr John Burggy



350 Mr John Burggy
350 Mr John Burggy




350 Mr John Burggy




361 Eileen & Peter Shelford
                              Bidwells
360   Nick Palmer
360   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
360   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
360   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
                              Bidwells
360 Nick Palmer
                              Bidwells
361   Nick Palmer
361   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
361   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
361   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
                              Bidwells
361 Nick Palmer
                              Bidwells
362   Nick Palmer
362   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
362   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
362   Nick Palmer             Bidwells
                              Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer
                              Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer
362 Nick Palmer       Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer       Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer       Bidwells
                      Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer
                      Bidwells
362   Nick Palmer
362   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
362   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
362   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
                      Bidwells
362 Nick Palmer
                      Bidwells
363   Nick Palmer
363   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
363   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
363   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
                      Bidwells
363 Nick Palmer
                      Bidwells
363   Nick Palmer
363   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
363   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
363   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
                      Bidwells
363 Nick Palmer
                      Bidwells
364   Liz Beighton
364   Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364   Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364   Liz Beighton    Bidwells
                      Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton
                      Bidwells
364   Liz Beighton
364   Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364   Liz Beighton    Bidwells
364   Liz Beighton    Bidwells
                      Bidwells
364 Liz Beighton
                      Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
                      Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson
                      Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
                      Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson
                      Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
                      Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson
                      Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
                      Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson
                      Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
                      Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson
                      Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
365   Neil Waterson   Bidwells
                      Bidwells
365 Neil Waterson
                      Bidwells
366   Nick Palmer
366   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
366   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
366   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
                      Bidwells
366 Nick Palmer
                      Bidwells
366   Nick Palmer
366   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
366   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
366   Nick Palmer     Bidwells
                      Bidwells
366 Nick Palmer
383 John Oakenfold




384 John Oakenfold




385 Anthony M Breen
401 Charles Boraston




403 Carol Smy (Clerk)   Stradbroke Parish Council




404 Mrs S M Eagle       Claydon and Whitton Parish Council




405 Mrs S M Eagle       Claydon and Whitton Parish Council




406 Mr A S McKelvie     Creeting St Mary Parish Council (Chairman)




407 Mr A S McKelvie     Creeting St Mary Parish Council (Chairman)
     Type of Representation
Stowmarket


Stowmarket




Woolpit




Woolpit


Woolpit




Woolpit

Woolpit




Metfield

Metfield

Gislingham



Gislingham
Gislingham




Gislingham



Onehouse - 1h, L -18h, LLB - 21h,
NB - 27h, NB - 28h & 1e




Onehouse - 1h, L -18h, LLB - 21h,
NB - 27h, NB - 28h & 1e

Onehouse - 1h, L -18h, LLB - 21h,
NB - 27h, NB - 28h & 1e




Onehouse - 1h, L -18h, LLB - 21h,
NB - 27h, NB - 28h & 1e




Onehouse - 1h, L -18h, LLB - 21h,
NB - 27h, NB - 28h & 1e

Onehouse - 1h, L -18h, LLB - 21h,
NB - 27h, NB - 28h & 1e


Onehouse - 1h, L -18h, LLB - 21h,
NB - 27h, NB - 28h & 1e
Bacton




Bacton




Bacton



Bacton



Debenham



Debenham


Debenham


Debenham




Debenham
Debenham




Debenham




Stowmarket




Stowmarket




Stowmarket




Stowmarket




Stowmarket
Stowmarket



Stowmarket




Stowmarket




Stowmarket
Stowmarket



Stowmarket




Stowmarket
Baylham




Baylham
Baylham

Baylham



Woolpit



Woolpit
Woolpit



Woolpit




Woolpit




Woolpit




Woolpit




Woolpit




Mid-Suffolk
Coddenham


Coddenham

Coddenham


Coddenham




Coddenham



Gt Finborough


Gt Finborough




Stowmarket



Creeting St Mary




Buxhall
Stowmarket




Stowmarket


Stowmarket


Stowmarket




Haughley



Eye Airfield
Eye Airfield




Eye Airfield




Eye Airfield




Eye

Eye


Eye




Gt Blakenham



Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham




Gt Blakenham




Stradbroke

Elmswell
Elmswell
Elmswell
Elmswell

Elmswell

Fressingfield
Fressingfield
Fressingfield
Fressingfield

Fressingfield

Claydon
Claydon
Claydon
Claydon

Claydon

Barham
Barham
Barham
Barham

Barham

Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham

Gt Blakenham

Botesdale
Botesdale
Botesdale
Botesdale

Botesdale

Rickinghall
Rickinghall
Rickinghall
Rickinghall

Rickinghall

Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham

Gt Blakenham

Claydon
Claydon
Claydon
Claydon

Claydon

Stowmarket - (Industrial Site)
Stowmarket - (Industrial Site)
Stowmarket - (Industrial Site)
Stowmarket - (Industrial Site)
Stowmarket - (Industrial Site)

Eye Airfield - (Industrial Site)
Eye Airfield - (Industrial Site)
Eye Airfield - (Industrial Site)
Eye Airfield - (Industrial Site)

Eye Airfield - (Industrial Site)

Mendlesham - (Industrial Site)
Mendlesham - (Industrial Site)
Mendlesham - (Industrial Site)
Mendlesham - (Industrial Site)

Mendlesham - (Industrial Site)

Gt Blakenham - (Industrial Site)
Gt Blakenham - (Industrial Site)
Gt Blakenham - (Industrial Site)
Gt Blakenham - (Industrial Site)

Gt Blakenham - (Industrial Site)

Woolpit - (Industrial Site)
Woolpit - (Industrial Site)
Woolpit - (Industrial Site)
Woolpit - (Industrial Site)

Woolpit - (Industrial Site)

Needham Market - (Industrial Site)
Needham Market - (Industrial Site)
Needham Market - (Industrial Site)
Needham Market - (Industrial Site)

Needham Market - (Industrial Site)

Claydon
Claydon
Claydon
Claydon

Claydon
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham
Gt Blakenham

Gt Blakenham
Stowmarket - 9h




Stowmarket - 27h




Needham Market
Weybread




Stradbroke




Claydon




Whitton




Creeting St Mary




Needham Market
                                   Representation
General Comment
Sport England will only support any other proposals that affect playing fields if
the proposals comply with our Playing Fields Policy 'A Sporting Future for the
Playing Fields of England' and Para 15 of PPG17.
Woolpit is a medieval village with many properties of historical value. It now has
a major traffic problem in the conservation area and has the worst traffic
congestion of the 23 potential development villages identified in the Issues and
Options Report. There are major concerns without the additional traffic of any
further development.
Woolpit acts as a work and facilities focus for surrounding villages. This
contributes to the existing congestion. The Parish Council is of the opinion that
sufficient employment opportunities already exist within the village and that no
more land should be allocated for commercial and industrial development. It
does not agree that Woolpit be included in the list of locations for main
employment allocations given in section 6(ii) of the Issues and Options
document.
The inclusion of sites within the land bids for HGV parking at either end of
Woolpit is alarming to many due to the traffic movements this will cause along
with the loss of a further Greenfield site.
There has already been an increase of more than 150 additional houses in
Woolpit since 1992, a 23% growth. It has undergone far greater growth than
most of the 23 potential development villages. The Village Appraisal carried out
in 2000, showed that the majority of residents (70.3%) were opposed to further
housing in Woolpit and their views have not changed in the intervening years.
Councillors are concerned to see that under Section 8(i) of the Site Specific
Allocation Issues and Options November 2007 you do not show lthat Woolpit
has produced a Village Appraisal. Clearly MSDC is aware of this as it is listed in
your publication Parish Plans Update Volume 1 Issue l December 2007 (copy
enclosed for your reference along with a copy of the Appraisal individual
questions counts).
The Core Strategy indicates that most housing development should be in or
adjoining towns. Woolpit Parish Council supports that view.
Site selection should have regard to the implications of para 33 or PPS10 and
the need to afford appropriate protection to existing waste management facilities
and allocated sites for waste development.
We would only find a site acceptable if for affordablel housing. In a recent
Housing Needs Survey 7 households identified a need.
We feel it is inappropriate to comment on sites without knowing what is
proposed in the application i.e. number of houses, style, etc.
General concerns regarding ongoing development within the boundaries of the
Village of Gislingham
Over the last five years there has been substantial development within the
village envelope of Gislingham. The number of houses built are well in excess
of those built within the envelopes of the other nine primary villages allocated for
future development.
The majority of houses built in Gislingham over the last five years have been
sizable four and five bedroom family houses. On the assumption that
approximately 50 family houses have been built in the last five years it can be
assumed the population of Gislingham has risen by 200 (20%).
This is turn caused considerable pressure on the infrastructure and services
within the village. The sewage treatment works adjoining the Village is now at
capacity and considerable investment will be required to enlarge the facility. The
newly built primary school, completed approximately three years ago, is close to
capacity.
1; The Parish Plan which was produced in 2006 is strongly against the
development of these sites. This is the Plan produced by the village (as
recommended by Government & County Council) to ensure that village needs
are met. Mid Suffolk District Council recommended the production of this plan as
evidence to be considered for the future needs for our village.
2; It is Government and Council policy to have a green field area between
parish boundaries to identify communities. To quote your „Core Strategy
Submission 2007‟ “There are policy constraints to maintain strategic gaps
between towns and villages to protect their separate identity and prevent
coalescence of settlements”. The proposals for all the developments would take
these green field areas away and hence Onehouse would become
encompassed into Stowmarket.
3; In your Core Strategy Submission 2007 It has been made quite clear that
development should be contained within Towns, Key Service Centres and
Primary Villages. Onehouse does not come into any of these categories.

4; Onehouse is listed as a Secondary Village with no facilities to accommodate
large scale development. To quote the parish plan again: „The village would
welcome affordable housing needs to meet the needs of the local community.‟
This would be small growth from within the village. This is as your Core Strategy
States. To Quote; „Secondary villages are villages unsuitable for growth but
capable of taking appropriate residential infill and development for local needs‟.
5; The development of the Union Road-Finborough Road site (1h,1e, & L-18h)
would not be in keeping with your policy regarding flooding certainly in the lower
areas of the river Rat. This area from Finborough to Stowmarket has suffered
flooding in the past, and with a vast area of land covered in concrete, just above
this area, would enhance the flood risk of this area and Stowmarket, as it is
within the flood gate at Burford bridge.
6; My feeling is that there is a lot of Brown Field sites within any of the towns
and Key Service Areas that should be investigated before damaging the Green
Countryside.
7; The Onehouse Parish Plan clearly states that the people of the village want
to:- “Retain its own identity and sense of community”. “Be a village and not a
suburb of Stowmarket”. “To remain a community bounded by pleasant
countryside.”
The residents of a few additional houses, could doubtless, be catered for but
there appear to be few leisure activities for young people in the village (many of
them seem to have spent their summer enenings clustered around a bench) and
there apprears to be little employment in the village. Public transport is limited (I
believe there are two buses a week to and from Bury St Edmunds, one bus a
week to and from Ipswich and seven buses every day except Sunday to and
from Stowmarket and Diss, the last one leaving Stowmarket for Bacton before 6
pm). This lack of public transport makes it difficult for anyone without his or her
own transport, whether young or older, to find work or leisure activities outside
the village.
Specifically in relation to the land adjacent to The Street, (referred to, I believe,
in an earlier document as 7h) may I draw attention to the fact that the Shop
Green junction is already at times throughout the day surprisingly busy. There
are lorries and tankers and vans delivering to the shop or garage as well as a
fairly continuous stream of customers to both.
There are also cars, lorries, vans and farm vehicles along the road or turning to
and from the Wyverstone direction. There is a lack of pavements and walking
safely in that vicinity can already be quite a challenge. I find this even more so
when accompanied by my small granddaughter and/or my grandson in his 'baby
buggy'. A small development of three or four houses would involve some
additional traffic with its accompanying dangers, a larger development would
obviously add greater traffic and,therefore, great risk to both drivers and
pedestrians, and would, in my opinion, be unsuitable for this particular site.
In conclusion, I would suggest that without considerable additions to the
amenities, for young people particularly, and a great improvement to the public
transport to and from the village, none of the sites in this village is appropriate
for a large development.

It has come to our attention very recently of your intention to increase the
number of houses in the Debenham area. The impact of this proposal is huge,
not only to the local population, but also to the infrastructure of the village.
There is already an incomplete housing estate called the Meadows, of
approximately 80 houses in the area, with the increased problem of traffic
through the narrow main street of Debenham. Also small pockets of houses are
being built among existing homes in Henry Street.
This has a huge impact upon our schools, both Senior Junior and Infants. Some
village children are already excluded and are being bussed of taxied to other
schools outside Debenham, which is completely unacceptable.
The Doctors Surgery is becoming unsustainable in its present form, and the
increasing population is already causing parking problems surrounding the
surgery.
Flooding in the area is also a huge problem. You will note that in the late 1980's
the whole of the village was under water. We have not at the present time had
any flash floods, but time will tell if the impact of the Meadows housing estate will
cause problems on the already very boggy area around Low Road. This road is
frequently impassable after prolonged rain.
You have appeared to have buried bad news in the approach to Christmas, for
not many of our members were aware of the meeting you held to raise
objections to your plans.
We all know the maxim Not in My Back Yard, but Debenham W.I. feel very
strongly that our voice of protest should be heard. As we have only one week to
make our objections felt, we have signed our names on the back of your
response form, as a petition against your proposed building plans for
Debenham.
The draft document recognises in Section 7 'Development in Towns' - sub-
section (i that Stowmarket is intended to continue to be the main centre and
growth area in Mid Suffolk. As part of this, the Council's Regeneration Strategy
seeks to improve the range of retail facilities on offer, in order to ensure that
continued housing growth is matched by with the provision of facilities land
services required.
Much of the housing growth to date, and which is ongoing, has taken place in
the Strategic Development Area (SDA) of Stowmarket. This is located to the
north and east of the town, and as such the defined settlement boundary has
been extended to incorporate this area. Comprising in excess 2000 new
houses, the SDA was originally the subject of a development brief to guide the
growth of the area and ensure that adequate facilities were in place to serve the
growing local population. A key objective of the brief was the provision of a new
Local Centre, which would incorporate a foodstore to serve the needs of the
local community.
In regard, we consider that the absence of an existing defined centre within the
SDA falls short of meeting the requirements set out in PPS6 (para 2.9) which
requires local authorities to consider the need to rebalance the network of
centres to ensure that people's everyday needs are met at a local level.
Accordingly, existing deficiencies in the network should be addressed and new
centres designated where necessary.
In light of the above, we propose that the area between Cedars Way and Kestrel
Drive, incorporating existing Tesco Store, would provide the most viable and
logical location for the designation of a new centre. It is considered that the
existing foodstore would act as an anchor to the centre, with the attraction of
new retail facilities offering a more varied mix of shopping provision helping to
ensure local needs are met.

Whilst we concur that the Core Strategy willl ultimately be responsible for
defining all centres within the District's retail hierarchy, it is important to consider
for the purposes of the Site Specific Allocations DPD, the allocation of vacant
land adjoining the Tesco site to the south of Cedars Way, which could provide
the ideal opportunity for further retail provision. This is an accessible site,
benefiting from direct pedestrian linkage from the new housing area around
Kestrel Drive and Nightingale Close, whilst being strategically located off the
A1120 highway (in itself providing transport links with Stowmarket Town Centre).
Furthermore, the inclusion of land around the existing Tesco Store to comprise a
new Local Centre in this location would also provide the ideal opportunity to
retain and draw further expenditure into the District as a whole. The need to
provide suitable retail facilities which are able to meet with modern retailer
requirements within the District was raised as a key concern of the Stowmarket
Retail Study, published by Mid Suffolk District Council in May 2007. At present,.
Stowmarket town Centre is limited in terms of offering suitable sites and
accommodation for the new retail provision. The allocation of land at Cedars
Way for retail facilities would not only ensure local needs would be met, but also
enable Stowmarket to compete with stronger centres outside the District.
In this regard, it is requested that land within the vicinity of Cedars Way,
incorporating the existing foodstore, is added to the schedule of sustainable
sites within the forthcoming Preferred Options document of the Draft Site
Specific Allocations DPD.
a) It is considered that an appropriate level of infrastructure works be completed
prior to commencement of the construction of any significant number of
dwellings (say 20%) that are proposed to be built in Stowmarket as outlined in
section 7.1. This infrastructure must include roads, schools, a bus station,
leisure and sporting facilities. It is also considered appropriate that prior to
completion of say 75% of the proposed dwellings all infrastructure works are
complete.
b) Payment of Section 106 monies should follow a pattern of say 66% paid
before completion of 20% of dwellings and 100% paid before completion of say
75% of dwellings It is also considered that to ensure that the momentum for
regeneration within Stowmarket all Section 106 monies associated with
development within Stowmarket is spent on facilities and the like within
Stowmarket.
c) A need for more affordable housing within was identified within Stowmarket.
d) The proposed loss of Chilton Fields sport pitches would be a great loss to
Stowmarket. It is considered that before any leisure or sports facilities are lost
that at least an equivalent level, and preferably an enhanced level, of provision
is completed and in place.
e) It is considered unfortunate that in general, and particularly in connection with
the proposal to enlarge the leisure and sporting activities within the town, that
the Schools Organisation Review will not be complete prior to completion of the
Stowmarket Masterplan and the adoption of the new Local Development
Framework. Prior knowledge of the future of school sites in Stowmarket would
heavily influence the findings of these important strategic documents. A method
for review of the Stowmarket Masterplan and The LDF following the outcome of
the School Organisation Review is required.
I understand that a land bid has been made to develop land at Baylham Stone.
My wife and I would like to object to this proposal as the infrastructure at Baylham Stone
is very poor. The area is served by single track roads, there is a limited water supply,
phone cables are at their maximum there are no mains services other than electricity
which may not be capable of serving more houses. There are no amenities such as
shops, post office, schools etc within a 3 mile radius.
This is hamlet in a rural area, outside the village envelope for Baylham, itself a small
village with no amenities.
 In short, the area is unsuitable for further development without a significant investment
in additional infrastructure.
Although I understand the need to provide more housing and employment to
meet the demographic changes anticipated in Suffolk in the coming 30 years, it
is clear that over-development can put significant pressure on resources, utilities
and services.
Having had only a very short time to view the plans for Woolpit I am pleased to
see there are additional areas being earmarked for the development of
employment, although I have not been able to ascertain to date if these would
be for retail, business or industrial, some of which I may have concerns over.
I do have the following general concerns about the plans for Woolpit:
1. The impact of a potential large-scale expansion on utilities such as water,
drainage and sewerage. There are already areas of Woolpit which become very
waterlogged or have roads which become like rivers during heavy rain. This will
only increase with more building.
2. The junior school in Woolpit does not currently have capacity, or potential
capacity, to take on more children; I therefore think that another school would
need to be built. In addition, older children already have to travel to other villages
/ towns for their education. Further expansion of the village would require more
transport (and the costs involved in this provision) or a new school being built
somewhere locally.
3. The health centre has recently expanded; this has already put pressure on the
local roads around it, as there is now a significant parking problem. More people
in the village would require more GPs. Id o not believe they could be
accommodated at the current health centre, therefore an additional health centre
would be required.
4. Woolpit is essentially a village. It has a thriving community which values its
way of life. All of the above would put pressure on what are essentially small
country village lanes. This in turn will impact on the structure of some peoples'
houses. If the current lanes are widened, or if the village is served by larger
inbound/outbound roads, this will impact on pedestrian safety. In addition, I
believe the sense of community will begin to be lost.
5. All of the above would begin to divide the community of Woolpit. Some
children would go to one school, others would go to another, the same with
health centres etc. The Government is seeking to reinforce communities not
divide them, therefore my concern is that these proposals go against
Government strategy.
Anglian Water Services will not be commenting on the site-specific document as
there are too many individual sites at this moment in time. The cumulative effect
of allocated sites on each catchment will need to be understood and this can
only practicably be done at the Preferred Options stage. We will endeavour to
give the council a full response on the implications to water and wastewater
infrastructure at that stage.
The Parish Council looks forward to early progress toward the affordable
housing addition now agreed in principle for Coddenham, but notes that each of
the villages listed in the Issues and Options document retains a primary school.
However, having regard to your Council's recently emphasised policy to provide
for recreation, particularly for young people, it is surprising that existing facilities
gain no mention.
How many of the "Primary Villages", or indeed the "Key Service Centres",
possess a new Sports Centre of the quality of that in Coddenham?
As you are well aware, Coddenham is served by a regular bus service, and there
exists readily accessible areas of land for modest additions of housing in
keeping with the village.

It is, therefore, earnestly hoped that this MSDC Framework Document does not
represent a renewed planning condemnation of Coddenham to withering away
with inevitable loss of both valuable existing facilities and community spirit,
based solely upon the arbitrary decision of a weak, under-funded County
Education Authority to close an inconvenient school, half a century ago.
The Parish Council is satisfied with the comments previously given in respect of
the land bids. If there was a move to fruitition we would like to see 30% of
affordable housing with the threshold reduced from 5 to 3 houses to ensure the
village is sustainable .

The green areas on the periphery of Stowmarket need to be retained to provide
green areas for sport and leisure activities particularly if development occurs.
Mike Shave from Old Newton P C (01449 673284) asked if the Masterplan can
put forward proposals for what he called a spine road from the roundabout at the
top of Prestons Hill into the proposed new estate at Ashes Farm (land bid). The
ONPC considered that this would take traffic away from the Newton Road that is
narrow along that stretch.
Roger Coton from Creeting St Mary PC was concerned about the access of
CSM residents to Stowmarket when the new bridge is built. He was of the
opinion that the road from Creetings would not have access to the road system
that linked to the bridge.

For your attention, the Parish Council wish to discuss a bid for the site of the
allotments at the junction of Mill Road and Brettenham Road (about 2 acres)
which has advantages over the Bretlyn Kennels site due to vehicular
accessibility and proximity to mains sewer and water. There has been a dearth
of demand for allotments over many years and the site is currently mainly leased
to keep it used (for pheasant rearing). The site is owned by Buxhall Parish
Council and it wishes to help those wanting first time homes in the village.
EEDA receives a number of requests of this kind, as a statutory consultee, and our
experience to date suggests a number of points on Local Development documents
which your authority may wish to consider.
EEDA‟s principal role is to improve the East of England region‟s economic performance.
Our main concern with Site Specific Allocation documents is therefore that they will help
deliver, and provide the spatial framework for:
        sustainable economic development and regeneration in the East of England,
       and in particular,
       ·      the Regional Economic Strategy (A Shared Vision: the regional economic strategy
       for the East of England, 2004).

Planning Policy Statement 12 „Local Development Frameworks‟, 2004 reminds local
planning authorities that in preparing local development documents they should take into
account, inter alia, the relevant Regional Economic Strategy (see para. 1.9). The RES
provides a vision for the region as a leading economy with high and growing levels of
wealth, increasing levels of economic participation and inclusion, and sustainable and
dynamic rural economies. This should be noted in the criteria and relevant policy, which
should make reference to the full range of regional policy.
In this context the impacts of proposed development on the following issues are likely to
be particularly significant and we request that, where appropriate, they are considered in
your site specific allocations document:
         – provision for businesses (particularly based in science and technology,
         research and innovation) including the supply of high quality business premises
         in sustainable locations;
         – improving the region‟s skills base and human capital (and especially to
         address skills gaps and shortages);

       – tackling deprivation and social exclusion, equality and diversity (giving
       communities improved opportunities to participate fully in the regional economy);
       – improving provision of port, airport and transport infrastructure so as to
       enable corridors of economic activity, and deliver growth and sustainable
       communities;
       – promoting sustainable development, urban renaissance and rural vitality,
       including the supply of high quality and affordable housing/ residential
       environments, balanced with provision for employment;
       – managing growth and development sensitively and effectively;

       –   complementing and enhancing the position of London as a world city; and

       – protecting and enhancing the region‟s landscapes and environmental assets.
In general, your Local Development Document should take account of the following sub
regional Policies contained in the RES for the Haven Gateway area:
         Recognition of the strategic role of the District in association with the Haven
        Gateway ports and regionally important urban centres
         Delivering sustainable mixed use communities, for example through the
        Ipswich Area Action Plan ( See RSS Policy HG1, which references need for joint
        partnership working)
         Developing the economic potential of major settlements and their rural
        hinterlands through workspace creation and reuse

         Enabling the sub region to capture the economic development opportunities
        arising from current and future port activity at Felixstowe, Harwich and Ipswich
         Promoting stronger intra regional links to Stansted airport and along the
        Ipswich – Cambridge corridor
The comments above should be considered and developed in your Site Specific
Allocations Document. In doing so your Site Specific Allocation document will provide the
context needed to maintain the prosperity of the East of England, enhancing its regional
competitiveness and giving support to business growth.
Summary

There are significant policy areas which now require joint working with adjoining districts.
LDF policy documents should be amended to reflect work that is and will be undertaken
on a sub regional basis. This includes the study currently being undertaken by Suffolk
Coastal District with district partners which is looking at land infrastructure requirements
to serve and capitalise on the benefits of Felixstowe port, which will have impact on Mid
Suffolk District employment land requirements. The document should also give greater
consideration to the impact of the Ipswich policy area, which has considerable impact in
economic terms on Mid Suffolk, and should be recognised as an important economic
driver for the sub region.

The recognition given to the SnOasis development is welcomed in the policy document.
By addressing these key elements of the RES, the LDF documents will provide the
context needed to maintain the prosperity of the East of England, enhancing its regional
competitiveness and giving support to business growth.
I am asking that any approval of lands bids around combs Ford be matched by
allocation of further green space for playing fields, children's playgrounds and
wildlife areas.

I have toured the land bid fields around Combs Ford earlier this year, and have
now visited the Needham Market Community Woodland, an area planted and
maintained by locals over the last five years, and now home tola range of wildlife
as well as being open to the public and used as a resource by local schools.
In view of the benefits of this project, I ask that successful land bids contribute to
the purchase of an area for establishment of a similar public asset for south
Stowmarket.
In addition I can advise that the local group of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust is
looking at the issue of Wildlife Corridors and the "String of Emeralds"
recommendaton from Civic Trust Report 2002.
In conclusion we object to the proposals for residential development, but if
Haughley is to be expanded, we consider the site adjacent to the St George's
field at Green Road would be more appropriate. It is separated from Old Street
and the conservation Area by the playing field, and has previously been granted
planning permission. The impact of additional traffic would also be moved away
from an already congested area, and further from the A14.
Thank you for your letter of 26th November 2007 received today. I am writing on
behalf of our client Mr T W Baldwin on whose behalf we have already made
representations for land to be allocated for housing and employment use around
the town of Eye.
The submissions we have made fall under reference numbers 1e (Castleton
Way Business Park - joint bid with Mrs E Moore represented by Durrants), 2h
(revision of settlement boundary to the rear of Langton Grove Farm), L - 6h (land
at Castleton Way - part of a mixed use proposal with 1e), and NB -11h (land
adjoining Langton Grove Farm).
In respect of the employment submissions, Mid Suffolk District Council had
already asked for as many land owners as possible on Eye Airfield to submit
bids. This was on the basis that they would be considered in totality rather than
in competition with each other. You will be aware that we have also made
representations on behalf of the Executors of B J Wyatt (deceased) and C A
West and Son Ltd for other parcels of land on Eye Airfield.
As a brownfield site Eye Airfield is certainly suitable for employment
development and already enjoys road links via the A140. Extensive
development has already taken place on part of the airfield owned by Roy
Humphrey, as well as new developments at Mid Suffolk Business Park and
Brome Industrial Estate. We feel that Eye Airfield is suitable for this type of
development as it meets both national and regional planning policy, satisfies the
sustainability appraisal. When considered in conjunction with the residential
land bid additional infrastructure would be required, but we believe that this
would not have a detrimental impact on the area generally. All of these points
have already been made in our original submission, made jointly with Durrants in
2002.
In respect of the housing allocation we believe there is scope for housing both in
its own right to satisfy the core strategy target of 80 new dwellings in Eye on
previously developed land for the period 2010 - 2015, but also in conjunction
with the land bid for employment use of Eye Airfield. Again, we have previously
made detailed representations about these areas.
The only amendment we would ask is that land bid 2h has been made by this
office and not W S Hall and Partners as indicated on your summary sheet.

I look forward to receiving the first draft of the preferred options document in
Spring 2008 and hope that the Council will view my client's land bids favourably.
Thank you for your reply of 17th to my letter of 8th April and for the care and
attention you have given to the points raised. While I am disappointed that we
have been unable to make any progress I am pleased to note the research you
have done with regard to consultation on planning applications which I will agree
since 2005 has improved. However, our problems started from 1999 onwards
when regretably neither the residents concerned or our Parish Council were kept
well informed. During these years we did have major problems with our Parish
Council almost being non-existant due to departure of members and lack of
persons willing to serve and we were also aware that you had many problems at
Mid Suffolk which might well have led to poor communications.
I have taken your advice that the matters raised now come within the jurisdiction
of Highways rather than yourselves and have therefore requested that a meeting
be arranged. I would hope that either yourself or one of your representatives
would also be invited should you wish to attend this.
As there is no other rural parish in the whole county with such a high level of
industrial development (and even more to come!) I am requesting that Great
Blakenham is looked at as a special case. We urgently need to look at the
whole village with a view to keeping residential and industrial apart. I and other
residents are very pleased indeed with Mid Suffolk's involvement in the
relocation of Boltons Waste Paper to a more suitable site as this is very much a
step in the right direction. Would it be possible to obtain extra Government
funding for regeneration? Please let us (Parish Council) and residents and our
MP know if there is any way we can help to achieve this should the possibility
exist.
There is no need for you to reply to this letter as I do not wish to take up any
more time and valuable resources at this point of time. I would however be very
obliged if you would keep in mind the points raised and would ask that future
developments in Great Blakenham do take into account residents' concerns and
are used whenever possible to address some of the existing problems. Given
this, new developments will be more readily acceptable and I hope we can build
a better working relationship than that which has existed in the past.
With all of the proposed sites the question of access needs to be considered,
together with the extra traffic any new housing will bring into the village. Losing
green belt land, hedgrows and trees and the general increase in the overall size
are not desirable. Will an increase in population mean more facilities? It can be
difficult to get an appointment with the doctor, for instance, would there be extra
staff at the medical centre to cope with a larger population?
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
         - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
         - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
         - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
         - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
         - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
         - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
         - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
         - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
         - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
Comments received from (NAME and SITE) which seek to clarify the bid and for correct
description of the bid in terms of at least one of the following:
        - the site details (eg boundary/ area/ access)
        - the purpose of the bid (eg housing, employment, mixed-use)
        - the intial sustainability score of the bid site or others in the vicinity
The comments together with any supporting documents have been filed with the ongoing
        Consultee submitted an 8 page letter giving reasons why Stowmarket sites 9h and
land bid documents and will be considered in due course.
        27h do not meet the criteria for successful site selection. The key points are
        summarised below under headings taken from the Council’s ‘Site Selection
        Criteria’ handout.                                                               5).
        Are there any other considerations that should be taken into account ?
        Makes general comments about the process:-
        · Identifies the danger of the decision process being overly influenced by potential
        for developer contributions to affordable housing, to the detriment of existing and
        future residents
        · Questions the legitimacy of the system that apparently allows ‘Allocations’ to
        operate under different rules to ‘Applications’ when it comes to adherence to
        existing boundaries and current policy
        · Is of the opinion that sites to the south and east would be preferable as would
        Needham Market, which is more readily accessible to Ipswich and fast expanding
        Hadleigh and Sudbury
        · Appreciates the competing pressures that the District council must try to balance
        in decision making but we should be mindful that decisions made now to disrupt
        the happy marriage between agricultural andreasons why Stowmarket sites 9h and
        Consultee submitted an 8 page letter giving recreational uses are irrevocable.
        27h do not meet the criteria for successful site selection. The key points are
        summarised below under headings taken from the Council’s ‘Site Selection
        Criteria’ handout.                                                               5).
        Are there any other considerations that should be taken into account ?
        Makes general comments about the process:-
        · Identifies the danger of the decision process being overly influenced by potential
        for developer contributions to affordable housing, to the detriment of existing and
        future residents
        · Questions the legitimacy of the system that apparently allows ‘Allocations’ to
        operate under different rules to ‘Applications’ when it comes to adherence to
        existing boundaries and current policy
        · Is of the opinion that sites to the south and east would be preferable as would
        Needham Market, which is more readily accessible to Ipswich and fast expanding
        Hadleigh and Sudbury
        · Appreciates the competing pressures that the District council must try to balance
        in decision making but we should be mindful that decisions made now to disrupt
        the happy marriage between agricultural and recreational uses are irrevocable.

Growth in Needham Market requires an investment in infrastructure beyond the
resources of small developments (mentions High St traffic). Developing existing space
within the town may block future opportunities for infrastructure improvements
(implication that edge of settlement development preferred not stated)
As a resident who will be directly affected by any development I have been asked to
convey to you that I have no objection to the current proposal for development (at the
rear of Post Office Cottages) as it stands at this stage of the process. Weybread
desperately needs an area of open space where community and recreational activities can
be held in safety and centrally within the village. [Probably Weybread 1h/lr, 2h/lr and
NB-4h]
Parish Council have submitted a response that covers at least one of the following
comments:                                                                                 -
questions the level of services and facilities available
- proposes amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal scores
- identifies key local issues (such as environment, traffic, affordable housing)
- analyses the advantages / disadvantages of different proposed sites
The full comments have been filed with previous responses from the Parish Council and
will be used as evidence on a site by site basis when considering landbids in the parish.
Parish Council have submitted a response that covers at least one of the following
comments:                                                                                 -
questions the level of services and facilities available
- proposes amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal scores
- identifies key local issues (such as environment, traffic, affordable housing)
- analyses the advantages / disadvantages of different proposed sites
The full comments have been filed with previous responses from the Parish Council and
will be used as evidence on a site by site basis when considering landbids in the parish.
Parish Council have submitted a response that covers at least one of the following
comments:                                                                                 -
questions the level of services and facilities available
- proposes amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal scores
- identifies key local issues (such as environment, traffic, affordable housing)
- analyses the advantages / disadvantages of different proposed sites
The full comments have been filed with previous responses from the Parish Council and
will be used as evidence on a site by site basis when considering landbids in the parish.
Parish Council have submitted a response that covers at least one of the following
comments:                                                                                 -
questions the level of services and facilities available
- proposes amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal scores
- identifies key local issues (such as environment, traffic, affordable housing)
- analyses the advantages / disadvantages of different proposed sites
The full comments have been filed with previous responses from the Parish Council and
will be used as evidence on a site by site basis when considering landbids in the parish.
Similar types of comments as response 406 to sites in Creeting St Mary Parish but
recorded as extensions to Needham Market settlement
Outcome   Officer's Recommendation

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:35
posted:4/20/2010
language:English
pages:541