Source: https://baberghmidsuffolk.oc2.uk/readdoc/reps/1248
Timestamp: 2020-02-25 16:23:25
Document Index: 346597368

Matched Legal Cases: ['art1', 'art 2', 'art3', 'art4', 'art1', 'art2', 'art3', 'art4']

Babergh District Council and Mid Suffolk District Council - Capel St Mary
Representation ID: 16323
The building land appears to be clay on a locally high water table. Harvesting and use of harvested water for toilets, washing etc other than for drinking will assist in flood prevention. Solar water heating is relatively cheap to install on new builds as is harvesting.
Building guidelines appear to make certain building controls voluntary. This means to save money builders will explain they can't afford such things.
Can we have compulsion in regards to solar water heating (evacuated tubes), solar panels, water harvesting. The building land appears to be clay on a locally high water table. Harvesting and use of harvested water for toilets, washing etc other than for drinking will assist in flood prevention.
Solar water heating is relatively cheap to install on new builds as is harvesting.
Representation ID: 16366
Respondent: John & Stella Mellish
We accept that Capel should make a contribution to the need for new homes, but feel strongly that the proposal to take nearly 800 is disproportionately high. In particular, we feel that the proposal to build 560+ new homes on the southern boundary of the village is a step too far. We would urge a higher priority to establishing a fairer allocation of new homes across the district, in order to help us retain our village and community.
Representation ID: 16503
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Smy
The plan shows that 20% more houses are required across the districts. Therefore I object to the fact that Capel St Mary is possibly going to see a 60% increase in the number of houses. Also, whilst some effort is shown to improve the infrastructure, it won't definitely happen as for example the doctors are not willing to expand and already can't cope.
Representation ID: 16624
Respondent: Ms Celia Hope
Whilst understanding government pressure to build 420 houses a year I cannot reconcile this with the effect the proposed development will have on Capel. It is already often not possible to park at the shops/village hall/doctors and the traffic on the street is frequently dangerous. Extra houses will only exacerbate these problems. Surely a mere 6 houses per village would be a far fair system.
The A12 is currently not fit for purpose, frequently being queued back to Capel from A12/A14 junction. Before further developments, the present infrastructure need upgrading. Many recent deliveries have unsold houses, why build when no demand?
Joint Local Plan Consultation Response (205.46 KB)
Representation ID: 16645
An expansion of Capel St Mary Doctors surgery is not possible on the present site and moving facilities from Capel to East Bergholt will in no way accomodate the needs of the population. With an ageing population in the village medical facilities should be as close as possible as many have disabilities and no transport. Substantially larger population can not be served appropriately in the present surgery.
The proposed new link road off LA055 to the A12 will only be an advantage to northbound vehicles all other vehicle movements will congest local traffic especially to the village centre.
Representation ID: 16648
Respondent: A Cobner
Developments in Capel should not be looked at in isolation. Schools, doctors, exit to A12 and improvement to A12 which is at present reaching saturation point at certain times should all be dealt with before further housing.
Joint Local Plan Consultation Response (176.08 KB)
Representation ID: 16704
Respondent: Constable Country Medical Practice Patient Participation Group
Increase in housing numbers throughout the villages covered by the practice can only increase the required number of journeys to the surgery along the A12. Proposed 750+ will completely overload the Capel surgery, resulting in more patients travelling to the East Bergholt surgery. Many are elderly with older and smaller cars. They may well have longer reaction times and have cars that can't accelerate quickly. The committee fully support any measures which would increase safety for patients travelling between the two surgeries. Ideally the committee would also like to see the Capel surgery premises upgraded and expanded so that the increased numbers of Capel patients did not need to travel to the East Bergholt site for treatment.
Joint Local Plan submission (105.38 KB)
Representation ID: 16903
Respondent: Mr Chris Ray
Firstly the Plan needs to consider real demand for housing in this area bearing in mind the changing economic climate. As others have commented, if there is a local need then Capel should bear it's fair share of the load. However an increase in the population of around 50% is disproportionate. The load on services and infrastructure has also been well documented. The plan needs to look at the cumulative effect of increasing housing in the area as we in Capel will be impacted by planned increases in East Bergholt, Washbrook and Sproughton.
Representation ID: 17008
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Clements
We have recently moved into the village for a quieter life away from the hustle and bustle of rapidly growing towns
Joint Local Plan consultation response (178.71 KB)
Representation ID: 17539
Respondent: Donald Murrell
Preferred options for house building in Capel St Mary are adjacent to the A12 highway and highly polluted. it has been widely reported (e.g. The Times, Jan 2017) that:
Living in such areas causes dementia, the major cause of death in this country;
The Lungs of children growing up in such areas never mature and severe asthma (even death) does occur!
Once more Babergh District Council demonstrate their disregard of their STATUTORY DUTY to consider Council Tax payers health!!!
Full Submission (196.99 KB)
Representation ID: 17812
Respondent: Mrs Judi burwood
The infrastructure within the village is not sufficient to sustain so many additional houses. To increase the facilities would put further pressure on restricted space and function.
The school, shops and Doctors are not sufficient to increase the population.
Roads could not cope with the extra cars at peak times
Entrance and exit to the village and the road layout of our village is not good enough to accommodate this number of additional houses and population.
The main street through the village is very narrow road at the busiest point in village. Currently causes congestion and risk - extra cars will make this area even more dangerous for children/pedestrians.
The dentist has not for a very long time had room to take any new patients.
There is currently a community which is largely made up by generations of families, choosing to come back to Capel when they decide to settle. The huge influx of people would completely change the feel of our 'bonded' community.
Parking in the shopping precinct and for the community centre could not cope with 1000+ extra cars. - leading to dangerous parking at the busiest part of the village
The Doctors are already struggling to cope with the amount of patients they already have.
The school would need to be significantly increased in size. Traffic and parking at school start and finish time is already an issue - with additional children this would be further exacerbated.
The A12 is extremely congested with the current population - the addition of further houses and the additional traffic this would bring would cause further congestion and delays.
To increase the size of the village so significantly would mean that the infrastructure would need to significantly improve and increase in capacity - this is costly and doesn't always provide the functionality required. A better solution would be to build a new town where the infrastructure is designed to cope with and sustain the size of the community.
Representation ID: 17831
Respondent: Mr Jon Sharp
I'm in favour of limited expansion of Capel St Mary providing it is accompanied by adequate investment in infrastructure and a big commitment by developers towards eco-friendly features and affordable housing. My objections to this plan are therefore that the proposed increase in houses in Capel is far too large proportionally to the current size of the village and that the investment in infrastructure to accompany it is wholly inadequate. The range of housing proposed lacks ambition in the areas of sustainability and affordability, facilitating profiteering by builders and land owners at the expense of residents and their children.
I'm in favour of limited expansion of Capel St Mary providing it is accompanied by adequate investment in infrastructure and a big commitment by developers towards eco-friendly features and affordable housing. My objections to this plan are therefore that the proposed increase in houses in Capel is far too large proportionally to the current size of the village and that the investment in infrastructure to accompany it wholly inadequate. Capel already has significant issues at its current size: inadequate parking facilities in the centre of the village, considerable problems with the Doctors surgery and traffic issues with queues to the Copdock roundabout frequently back the 3 miles to Capel and further on weekday mornings. Expansion of the primary school is noted in the plan but it is worth pointing out that the local secondary school (East Bergholt) is also already over subscribed most years (it ran a waiting list in excess of 50 students this year for the 186 places on offer). Traffic flow through the village is problematic at key pinch points and this would be exacerbated considerably by the proposed expansion of 500+ houses in the Red Lane area. Proposed supply of altermatic village facilities to accompany that expansion would create a two-tier, dual-hub village with little sense of cohesion of community. levels of social and affordable housing in proposals are frequently derisory and with the cost of housing in this area it leads to Capel becoming ever more gentrified and with an ageing demographic.
Representation ID: 18055
Respondent: Yvonne Millar
I know of no objective need that has been identified that this number of homes should be built in Capel St Mary. Local surveys identify a very small number of houses required, specifically smaller ones. Current needs are not being met. Proposals would place a very heavy burden on doctor's surgery which cannot cope with demand. Needs to be solved by provision of additional medical staff, not something the local plan can provide. Already suffer from a lack of recreational green space. No consideration of provision of extra green recreational space. Limited consideration of additional employment space which will overload A12/A14 junction. No control over improvements to the road network. will add noise and air pollution, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
I wish to make the following objections to the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Local plan, for the reasons given.
1. Capel St Mary housing needs.
I know of no objective need that has identified that this number of houses should be built in Capel St Mary. Indeed local surveys from Capel residents identify a very small number of houses required. Specifically they tend to favour houses that can be afforded by young people to allow those that are brought up in the area and smaller sized bungalows that allow elderly residents to downsize to a more suitable post retirement home. Currently these needs are not being met by developers and I see no potential for them to be met by standard developers in the future.
If the proposed number of houses were to be built in Capel, then this would place a very heavy burden on the existing doctor’s surgery which cannot cope with demand. This cannot be resolved by additional capital spend to increase the size of the surgery, but needs to be solved by the provision of additional medical staff in the village. This is not something that the local plan can provide and so there is a serious question in my mind about the sustainability of this proposal.
Capel already is suffering from a lack of recreational green space in the village. The playing field is very busy at weekends with many games of football being played. There is no evidence that any consideration has been given in this plan to the provision of additional green recreational space of the village.
The addition of around 800 houses to Capel, will create the need for around 1200 jobs at a conservative estimate of 1.5 employees per house hold. There is limited provision for any additional employment space in the plan and even after taking working at home capability into account, there is likely to be of the order of an additional 2000 traffic movements out an in to the village per day. The vast majority of this traffic will head northward on the A12 to the already overloaded A12/A14 junction. When the potential additional traffic from the East Bergholt proposals and the Copdock proposal is added, this will mean additional stationary traffic on the A12 at peak times. As you have no control over improvements being made to the road network in the county, you are responsible for adding noise pollution and air pollution to the local area and increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at a time when the urgent need is to make reductions in these areas to mitigate climate change.
Representation ID: 19660
Respondent: Mr David Thompson
Capel St Mary needs starter homes for the young and bungalows for the elder. infirm present residents.
Services, facilities and infrastructure unable to cope.
What Suffolk needs are new villages
Please see attached consultation resposne
Joint Local Plan consultation response (80.77 KB)
Representation ID: 19821
Respondent: D E Baker & Son
In contrast, CODE’s suggested allocations TM097387, TM097388 and TM099387 overcome many of these negative impacts. These sites do not have any impacts upon heritage assets, would be acceptable from a highway perspective (and would not require the upgrade of the existing junction onto the A12), are acceptable from a landscape perspective and provide excellent accessibility into existing services and facilities in Capel St Mary.
Joint LocalPlan consultation response (222.23 KB)
TM097387 Part1 (14.90 MB)
TM097387 Part 2 (13.76 MB)
TM097387 Part3 (14.52 MB)
TM097387 Part4 (8.95 MB)
TM099387 (402.16 KB)
TM097388 Part1 (14.60 MB)
TM097388 Part2 (14.08 MB)
TM097388 Part3 (14.04 MB)
TM097388 Part4 (8.33 MB)