Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation The only areas of Haverhill that should be Noted considered for development are Haverhill West (Hanchett village area) and Haverhill Northwest where there is room to build enough housing to Haverhill Question allow realistic expansion, without adversely 49 Mr John Baker Strategic 8 affecting the quality of life of people in the rest of Sites the town. It is also the side of town best served for travel between Haverhill and main routes (eg M11/A14) as well as and Bury St Edmunds. Option 1: I disagree because of - distance from Noted town centre, flooding risk, sewerage issues - not much more capacity of current system, accessibility Haverhill to already full A1307 road. Option 2: disagree - Mrs Rosemary Question 125 Strategic sewerage issues, distance from Withersfield (too Wenham 8 Sites close), maintaining the integrity of the village and keep rural boundary of Withersfield. Option 3: disagree for same reasons - flooding, sewerage, communications. Noted I feel that other areas around Haverhill could be The Council has considered for development - e.g. Area S.E of town worked closely near existing bypass. Options 1 & 2 for Haverhill with Braintree Haverhill would appear to cover part of Parish of District Council Mrs Rosemary Question 134 Strategic Withersfield, but are Cleary outside the settlement when considering Wenham 8 Sites boundary for Wiithersfield. It is important that any locations for future development of Haverhill ensures that there strategic growth, are sufficient jobs in Haverhill to mean that people however at this do not have to leave the town to go to work. time it is not perceived to be Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation suitable to locate development south of the A1017.

Living in Bury, I cannot comment closely but there Noted are strong arguments for focusing any new development of Haverhill in the light of the: need Haverhill for regeneration in the town; requirement for new Mr Jim Question 166 Strategic housing linked specifically to local employment Sweetman 8 Sites rather than out commuting; requirement to develop equivalent regional key centres across the region; support for change and regeneration in the 2008 issues report. Haverhill Noted Question 264 Mr Peter Crofts Strategic No comment 8 Sites Haverhill It is impossible to comment meaningfully as to Noted Preservation Question 582 Richard Ward Strategic which is the most appropriate, if any, of the sites at Society 8 Sites this stage given the limited information available. In terms of the sites that have been highlighted by Noted the council for possible development, it is It is considered that whilst some Greenfield sites will acknowledged Haverhill need to be allocated for development in the District that the three Question 359 Mr S Oakley Strategic to meet future housing needs, Brownfield sites strategic sites are 8 Sites should be considered in the first instance and as a not the only sites preference, Our client’s site at Charter House, along being considered Sturmer Road in Haverhill (SS14 Haverhill South for development. East), is a 1960’s employment site containing a A number of sites Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation number of asbestos roofed industrial buildings. New put forward employment areas in Haverhill and elsewhere in the across the District are providing new industrial buildings that borough are are insulated and more appropriate to the needs subject to a and requirements of businesses. Our client’s site is separate, but Brownfield, not within an area at risk of flooding, a parallel Conservation Area or Area of Special Landscape and consultation as there is no known contamination of the site. The part of the Site site is also close to existing services and facilities Allocations Plan and is considered to be an ideal location for Document. residential development, ahead of Greenfield sites that are located further away from facilities. The loss in employment land at Charter House would not be significant and would improve the surrounding environment, in particular for the residential dwellings located opposite the site along Sturmer Road. Whilst it is recognised that not all new residential growth in the District can come form brownfield sites, there are opportunities available (such as our client’s site) that should be considered in detail before support is given to the larger Greenfield and edge of town sites. I wish to register my objection to the proposed Noted. extension of Haverhill [Haverhill Strategic Sites 1, 2 Haverhill is part & 3]. The LDF takes no account of the current of the Cambridge Haverhill Question respective sizes odf Haverhill and Bury St Edmunds. Sub-Region and, 610 Dr David Gilligan Strategic 8 To propose that both towns have a 40% share is along with a ring Sites illogical as Burt St Edmunds has by far the more of other market advanced infrastructure to support any new towns, meets the developments. Haverhill has no Hospital, railway housing needs Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation etc. Bury has x 10 retail developments This plan is which cannot be merely a repeat of the 1999 plan The A 1307 is met by currently struggling to cope with traffic flow at peak Cambridge alone. and other times, expansion will only make this worse and increasingly dangerous. Flooding in area The distribution 1 is a major issue The current sewerage cannot for growth has cope The developments in areas 1 and 2 will come been reassessed to within 580 meters of the village boundary. with the publication of the Core Strategy.

It is acknowledged that there is an ongoing need for investment in transport infrastructure in South , not only to address the issue of commuting, but to meet the needs of the local economy. Service providers, including Anglian Water, have been involved in the Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation LDF process and are aware of the levels of growth planned for Haverhill. Anglian Water can use this information to plan future sewage treatment capacity. We do not think we have sufficient information, Noted Councillors Haverhill insight and local knowledge to make judgements on Question 395 Ereira-Guyer & Strategic the massive growth identified for Haverhill; and we 8 Cockle Sites would leave this to our councillor colleagues in the south of the borough to make their opinions known. Option 1 Haverhill Western Edge is prone to Noted flooding and if the integrity of the village is to be maintained it is too near Withersfield. Option 2 Haverhill Mrs Moira Question Haverhill Northern Edge again is too near 416 Strategic Willmot 8 Withersfield and the A1307 barely copes with its Sites traffic now and any increase would be disastrous Option 3 North Eastern Edge is the most suitable of those options. SW of the Bypass would be better. We are writing to you to give comments of the St Noted. Edmundsbury Local Development Framework and in The distribution Haverhill particular to questions 8 and 9 regarding Haverhill for growth has Mr James Paice Question 555 Strategic expansion. We are elected representatives of parts been reassessed MP 8 Sites of Southern Cambridgeshire most affected by the with the recent and future growth of Haverhill We note that publication of the the LDF allows for at least 540 homes to be built Core Strategy. Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation each year of which a minimum of 40% are planned for Haverhill. While we recognise the need for affordable housing in the area, it is our opinion that It is the continued expansion of Haverhill is not acknowledged sustainable without significant improvements to the that there is an transport and road infrastructure through Southern ongoing need for Cambridgeshire. We note that the LDF states that investment in there is already a high level of out-commuting from transport Haverhill. It is our opinion that the employment infrastructure in needs of this number of future inhabitants are South extremely unlikely to be met within the town. Cambridgeshire, Therefore the issue of increased commuters must not only to be addressed with investment in infrastructure. This address the issue must include a significant re-engineering of the of commuting, A1307 as well as investment to prevent rat running but to meet the along minor roads through needs of the local villages. We have a serious concern that s106 economy. It also monies alone may not be sufficient to meet the has to be required investment for upgrading the A1307. We acknowledged note that you recommend promoting the A1307 “as that Haverhill is a strategic public transport corridor with improved part of the public transport to provide a more effective Cambridge Sub- competitor to car travel, especially for journeys to Region and, Cambridge”. We do not believe this alone will along with a ring provide a sustainable solution to the commuting of other market needs of Haverhill residents as we note the number towns, meets the of different destinations residents already access, housing needs including Stansted and other areas of the which cannot be Cambridge Sub-region. The A1307 The A1307 is the met by main commuting route for Haverhill residents Cambridge alone. accessing either Cambridge or Stansted. It already Such investment Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation one of the most congested roads in Cambridgeshire will require and the entire route was described as “close to partnership capacity” by independent consultants back in 2005 , working between since when traffic has increased. We are sure that the various you are aware of the high number of tragic parties involved accidents on this road and many St Edmundsbury and will in part be residents have been directly involved. There have addressed by been 6 fatalities in the past year alone. Adding S106 additional traffic to the route without substantial contributions. improvements in junctions is unacceptable. In the “Sustainability Assessment” you state that the first objection is to “improve the health of the population overall”. However no mention is made of the single health Statistic in South Cambridgeshire that is below the national average – that is the statistic for Road Injuries and Deaths. Unless this issue is addressed the sustainability of future development cannot be justified. Rat Running through Villages In recent years South Cambridgeshire villages have noted a significant increase in rat-running by residents from Haverhill who either seek to avoid the A1307 or are using alternative routes to access alternative destinations (particularly to get more direct access to employment venues on the North of Cambridge City - such as the Science park). The Villages and Routes affected are • - – - Fulbourn – Cherry Hinton and Teversham. • Withersfield - West Wratting towards Six Mile Bottom and towards o the A14. • Through Nosterfield End () and Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation towards Linton. • Along the B1061 through Dullingham towards the A11/A14 Recent traffic counts at one of these villages shows that vehicle movements have more than doubled within the past 3 years. Continued growth of Haverhill without addressing this issue will lead to further accidents and is again unsustainable. Specific Sites at Haverhill We note that 3 different options are given for future sites at Haverhill. Having looked at all the options we believe they will all give rise to future increased traffic movements through Southern Cambridgeshire and as such are all unacceptable for the reasons given above We note that 3 different options are given for Noted. future sites at Haverhill. Having looked at all the See comments options we believe they will all give rise to future above. increased traffic movements through Southern Haverhill Councillor Question Cambridgeshire and as such are all unacceptable 557 Strategic Richard Barrett 8 for the reasons set out in detail in letter dated 9th Sites December 2008 from James Paice MP and Councillors from South Cambridgeshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council. We note that 3 different options are given for Noted. future sites at Haverhill. Having looked at all the See comments Councillor Haverhill options we believe they will all give rise to future above. Question 559 Anthea Strategic increased traffic movements through Southern 8 Davidson Sites Cambridgeshire and as such are all unacceptable for the reasons set out in detail in letter dated 9th December 2008 from James Paice MP and Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Councillors from South Cambridgeshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council. We note that 3 different options are given for Noted. future sites at Haverhill. Having looked at all the See comments options we believe they will all give rise to future above. increased traffic movements through Southern Haverhill Councillor Vicky Question Cambridgeshire and as such are all unacceptable 561 Strategic Ford 8 for the reasons set out in detail in letter dated 9th Sites December 2008 from James Paice MP and Councillors from South Cambridgeshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council. We note that 3 different options are given for Noted. future sites at Haverhill. Having looked at all the See comments options we believe they will all give rise to future above. increased traffic movements through Southern Haverhill Councillor Tony Question Cambridgeshire and as such are all unacceptable 563 Strategic Orgee 8 for the reasons set out in detail in letter dated 9th Sites December 2008 from James Paice MP and Councillors from South Cambridgeshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council. We note that 3 different options are given for Noted. future sites at Haverhill. Having looked at all the See comments Haverhill options we believe they will all give rise to future above. Councillor Question 565 Strategic increased traffic movements through Southern Mathew Shuter 8 Sites Cambridgeshire and as such are all unacceptable for the reasons set out in detail in letter dated 9th December 2008 from James Paice MP and Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Councillors from South Cambridgeshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council. We note that 3 different options are given for Noted. future sites at Haverhill. Having looked at all the See comments options we believe they will all give rise to future above. increased traffic movements through Southern Haverhill Councillor Question Cambridgeshire and as such are all unacceptable 567 Strategic Robert Turner 8 for the reasons set out in detail in letter dated 9th Sites December 2008 from James Paice MP and Councillors from South Cambridgeshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council. Q8 Object All sites will lead to an increase in traffic Noted that already causes problems both within Haverhill and the A1307 Site 1 is to close to Withersfield and a flooding risk Site 2 to is to close to Withersfield Haverhill Mr Terence Question Site 3 even with the relief road it would just move 808 Strategic Gillyon 8 the existing congestion in Haverhill over to Sites Withersfield Road/Meldham Bridge area (plus an extra 9000 cars), and so encourage even more use of , Little Wratting and Withersfield as a rat run to join the A1307 further up the road. Apparently the area to the SW of the southern relief Noted road has not been considered for development Haverhill because of its elevation. Land elevation was a Question 1034 Mr Peter Lord Strategic criterion of the 1999 plan to reduce the visual 8 Sites impact of Haverhill development from surrounding areas. However, frankly Haverhill "stands-out like a sore thumb" from any direction of approach. I Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation would suggest that the "land elevation" criterion was well-intended but in practice ineffectual at achieving its objective, and that this SW area would make a very suitable candidate for any development in that it has: 1. Direct access to the southern relief road (and thus the A1307 to Cambridge) without increasing traffic within Haverhill or the northern villages. The new residents will undoubtedly appreciate more convenient access to the rush-hour traffic congestion. (Realistically, most of them will be commuting to Cambridge/) 2. More direct access to both the town centre shops/facilities and edge-of-town supermarket. The area to the south of Haverhill is located predominantly within . The These sites were all looked at back in 1999: why Council has are no new proposals being put forward, in worked closely Haverhill Miss Martha Question particular land to the south of the town, which with Braintree 893 Strategic Wright 8 would have the advantage of being less far from District Council Sites the town centre, and less impact on surrounding when considering villages? locations for strategic growth, however at this time it is not perceived to be suitable to locate Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation development south of the A1017. Points of opposition to preferred options. Noted Consultation period too short. The options document is overly complicated and too difficult. Many people will not respond to this format. Questions are weighted ie. Your question 1. Your vision of St Edmundsbury - Who would disagree? Haverhill is and will remain a dormitory town because of its artificial expansion and lack of facilities. The majority will travel on the A1307. Haverhill Question Bury St Edmunds has the scope to accept the 1182 Mrs N Randall Strategic 8 majority of new build because the infrastructure is Sites already there i.e. Hospital, shops, Schools, FE and Higher education and leisure and main route access. Haverhill already has issues with flooding and sewage treatment. The council wishes to maintain the integrity of the villages. Further development on any northern edge of Haverhill will have a detrimental effect on Withersfield. A minimum of 1K from village boundaries should be maintained free of new build. Haverhill Noted Question 687 M B Higgins Strategic Too large, badly sited. See additional comments. 8 Sites Whilst Hopkins Homes Limited has no direct interest Noted. Haverhill Question in Haverhill at this time, given the prominence with Haverhill is part 708 Mr Chris Smith Hopkins Homes Ltd Strategic 8 which the East of Plan attaches to the of the Cambridge Sites growth of Bury St Edmunds, and the perceived Sub-Region and, Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation need to develop the employment base of Haverhill along with a ring to enable the town to become more self sufficient, of other market the need to identify similar strategic growth towns, meets the locations to the same degree as Bury St Edmunds is housing needs questioned. Given also the potential coalescence which cannot be issues which would appear to be raised by the sites met by as identified, it is suggested that such growth might Cambridge alone. be better shared between Bury St Edmunds and the Policy CS3 identified 'key service centre' villages of the Protecting Borough. Settlement Identity will ensure that strategic growth will not threaten the integrity of villages that surround Haverhill. The distribution for growth has been reassessed with the publication of the Core Strategy.

Summary: I believe Haverhill has the scope to Noted. Haverhill accept further building in the areas identified. Mr Nicholas Question 789 Strategic However, further building will definitely require Kirkham 8 Sites significant improvements in certain areas; improvements in road capacity, rail services/light Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation railway, change in approach to allowing shopping chains to Haverhill high street to protect local business, health care provision, and schools: - 1. Improvements in road capacity - Dual carriage way to A11 to manage North bound traffic towards Cambridge and Bury St Edmunds - Significant improvements to by-pass around the Northern edge of Haverhill - Improvements to local roads to support traffic towards other destinations, such as Stansted Airport. 2. Rail services/ light railway - alongside the increase/ improvement to roads, to help the move traffic to a light railway towards major destinations, such as Cambridge, using the previous track from the Haverhill railway, closed many years ago - supporting the environmental 3. Change in approach to allowing shopping chains to Haverhill high street, to protect local business - increases in population drives more people to travel to Cambridge, Bury, etc, as the current high street shopping doesn't provide the range and depth of shops one would expect in a large town of the size of Haverhill - there should be enough additional demand through new people to support existing local shops 4. Health care provisions - Ambulance services currently travel a long way to reach patients from the hospital basis, so an ambulance station closer to Haverhill will allow Ambulance crews to remain closer to Haverhill, in a safe and secure environment - Improvements in health care provision, increases in primary GP care and dentist care, as currently even with the current population Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation it is very hard to get appointments 5. Schools - With the move from three stage to two stage schooling in Suffolk, a review of how schools currently changing will be affected by rapid increase in population in specific areas of the town. I believe many smaller villages have capacity to accept a small number of new buildings, but the road infrastructure in many villages is already stretched, so it would be better to locate a large number of houses closer to better road links, for example along a new dual carriage way towards the A11. Finally, many people currently work in Cambridge or even London, rather than in Haverhill, and the increase in housing will draw in many more people who will travel a significant distance for work. Therefore, road/ rail infrastructure is in my mind the critical key to seeing the town. This is just a re run of rejected 1999 plan with no fresh ideas. No further development for Haverhill should take place until infrastructure is in place to cope with any further development. Ie Roads, sewerage, water run off. Object All sites will lead to Haverhill an increase in traffic that already causes problems Mrs Diana Question 818 Strategic both within Haverhill and the A1307 Site 1 is to Gillyon 8 Sites close to Withersfield and a flooding risk Site 2 to is to close to Withersfield Site 3 even with the relief road it would just move the existing congestion in Haverhill over to Withersfield Road/Meldham Bridge area (plus an extra 9000 cars), and so encourage even more use of Great Wratting, Little Wratting Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation and Withersfield as a rat run to join the A1307 further up the road. Option 1 i only agree if the following is managed and addressed: Flooding, traffic and suitable infrastructure and retail / jobs are part of the picture. Lip service to these areas being addressed will be closely monitored to ensure we do not have a repeat performance of the last build in Haverhill, Haverhill without the supporting development of the town Miss Jane Question 1067 Strategic and surrounding areas that previously occurred. Farmer 8 Sites Bury have evidence that the town is supported in retail and infrastructure, however one look at Haverhill town and surrounding area is evidence that the town is vastly lacking in comparison to Bury. Option 2& 3 : do not agree, the surrounding villages are already struggling to cope with oversubscribed schools, shops, traffic and parking. Sites 1 & 2 are preferred as long as there is a Noted Haverhill Question substantial new road to the north of the new sites 1690 Graham Marler Depden Parish Council Strategic 8 linking A1307 to A143 The boundary of site 1 is to Sites close to the attractive village of Withersfield Option 1 and 2 combined - part already agreed in Noted. 1999 stud - is large enough to allow for more Haverhill Mrs Barbara Question houses if requirements revised upwards. Is best for 1664 Strategic Surridge 8 Cambridge sub region, Peterborough growth area Sites and Stansted Airport Disagree with option 3: does not protect identity of Kedington Mrs Barbara Question Haverhill Do not support option 3 (NE Haverhill) as it Policy CS3 1671 Surridge 8 Strategic inevitably means that 5.53 (maintaining settlement Protecting Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Sites identity) is voided, particularly regarding Kedington Settlement and Calford Green Identity will ensure that strategic growth will not threaten the integrity of villages that surround Haverhill. Policy CS3 Protecting Settlement Option 3 - disagree. There is already little country Identity will Haverhill between Haverhill & Kedington & Calford Green ensure that Mr Michael Question 1718 Strategic (currently only 2 fields in the latter case). A very strategic growth Surridge 8 Sites narrow green strip does not preserve the identity of will not threaten a settlement. the integrity of villages that surrounds Haverhill. Haverhill Noted Mr Michael Question Do not support Haverhill option 3 (N.E). This 1722 Strategic Surridge 8 conflicts with Question 16 above. Sites Haverhill I would like to propose that Option 3 is my Noted Question 1764 Mr & Mrs Bunch Strategic favoured option for the LDF proposals which have 8 Sites been put forward. Haverhill In a previous consultation the people of Haverhill Noted Mrs Chrissie Question 1305 Strategic have said that they wanted the area to be Beck 8 Sites developed. I would support regeneration and Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation development in Haverhill to bring in a growth of Stansted related industry. There are strong arguments for focusing any new development on Haverhill rather than Bury in the light of the need for regeneration in the town. Haverhill Traffic impact on Westley /Horringer of traffic from Noted Westley Parish Question 1146 Carmel Plant Strategic Haverhill Developments must be considered. Council 8 Sites Westley would be used as main traffic link to A14. 1. Development should not encroach on historic Noted. villages so as to maintain the integrity of the Policy CS3 villages. In the case of Haverhill development, this Protecting applies primarily to Withersfield. In order to Settlement maintain the integrity of Withersfield, a no- Identity will development buffer zone of one kilometre as ensure that measured from the current Withersfield settlement strategic growth boundary should be designated along the will not threaten southwest, south, and southeast side of the village. the integrity of Development to the north of Withersfield, an area villages that Haverhill Mr Albert Question that is currently agricultural, should be prohibited. surround the 1186 Strategic Reichert 8 2. Housing construction must not precede towns of Haverhill Sites infrastructure development. In particular, no and Bury St development to the west or northwest of Haverhill Edmunds. should proceed until the A1307 public transport along the A1307 has been improved. 3. Housing construction in Haverhill should be conditioned on public sector financing of the development of Haverhill city centre. Haverhill city centre development should include recreational and health development. 4. Importantly, the area to the south of the Haverhill bypass within Suffolk should be Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation strongly considered for development. This area would have more reasonable access to the A1307 though the many roundabouts along the bypass. The idea of not developing land above the 100 meter contour is outdated given the extent of currently proposed development around Haverhill. I would rather be able to see new development on the horizon because the land there is relatively elevated, than be able to see new development on the other side of the village green. Haverhill There needs to be a traffic impact study for Noted Question 1266 Mr Alan Green Strategic Horringer and Westley re traffic from Haverhill 8 Sites travelling north to join the A14 and visa versa Haverhill Mr Wayne Question 1295 Strategic Baxter 8 Sites This is massive development proposed for Haverhill Noted. that will see it grow by almost 50% in size. Such a Haverhill is part major growth and development requires much of the Cambridge more detailed information (than that pathetic map) Sub-Region and, and consultation. At present Haverhill is of a fairly along with a ring low socio-economic position, there are poor of other market Haverhill Mrs Gillian Question government/county facilities in Haverhill, e.g. Poor towns, meets the 1413 Strategic Braulik 8 schools, a small library, no hospital, poor public housing needs Sites transport and severely over crowded road which cannot be connections. There are few job opportunities in met by Haverhill and most people commute to other places Cambridge alone. to work. Another 10,000 people simply cannot be It is supported with the current infrastructure. Adding acknowledged more houses with insufficient jobs and that there is an Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation infrastructure will further contribute to the poor ongoing need for socio-economic position of the town compared to investment in other towns in the county. In addition, the timing of transport the consultation period over the Christmas and New infrastructure in Year Period seems strategically chosen by the South Council to try to avoid obtaining public comment. Cambridgeshire, The consultation should be extended to allow more not only to people to comment when they return to work. address the issue of commuting, but to meet the needs of the local economy. Service providers, including Anglian Water, have been involved in the LDF process and are aware of the levels of growth planned for Haverhill. Anglian Water can use this information to plan future sewage treatment capacity. The consultation period ran for nine weeks in acknowledgement of the Christmas Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation period. The statutory requirement is a six week consultation.

I SUPPORT all three proposals. My wife and I Noted relocated to East Anglia in 2000 and, if it wasn't for the new-build developments of Haverhill, we would have struggled to find somewhere both appropriate and affordable to live. Since starting a family we Haverhill chose to move to a village to gain garden space. I Question 1529 Mr Jones Strategic wouldn't wish to prevent other young families from 8 Sites having the same opportunities that my family had. I also recognise that more young single people purchase houses, more people are living longer and that more couples are sadly separating. This puts an increasing pressure on housing and this demands that new houses are built. Regarding the proposed development around Noted Mr D M P Haverhill Withersfield near Haverhill, I write to support Great Question 1540 Fleming de Strategic Wratting Parish Council in their considerations and 8 Wintor Sites their preferred option, plot 3 for the development. Please make a note of my support. Haverhill Noted Question 1568 A Kiddy Strategic No 8 Sites Question Haverhill Overall I am concerned that whilst the expansion of Noted. 1725 Paul Donno 8 Strategic Haverhill is probably inevitable, the offering to keep The Council is Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Sites new residents has to be good and 2016 is not that working in far away to get a functioning High Street and partnership with support services. Areas such as Emergency other agencies Services, Sports Centre, Health Services, shopping including service and leisure need to be able to accommodate this providers who expansion. can use this information to bring forward any required improvements. A substantial evidence base has been produced including infrastructure and environmental capacity studies and a water cycle study. I understand Haverhill sees this new plan as Noted Haverhill Mrs Elizabeth Question providing work and better facilities in the area. It 1867 Strategic Kirkpatrick 8 would be an excellent commuter base for Stansted Sites airport expansion work force The planned expansion of the town of Haverhill The Council is offers 3 options as a 'western' 'northern' and 'north- working in Haverhill Question eastern' building area. It would seem these partnership with 1940 Mrs D Tulloch Strategic 8 expansions are offered before the infrastructure other agencies Sites and true requirements are properly considered. Can including service Haverhill offer the industry and support functions to providers who Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation accommodate another large expansion? It could be can use this argued that the previous expansion was not well information to thought through and history has shown it really bring forward any struggled to survive. The result is certainly not a required pleasing one, either for those resident in the town, improvements. A or visiting it. Any further expansion, if really substantial necessary, should certainly be retained within the evidence base valley, as new construction on the higher grounds has been around the town would clearly detract from a produced particularly pleasant part of the English countryside, including in this region of East Anglia. We surely owe our infrastructure and future generations some sensible logic in the environmental process of planning, if we are to maintain our capacity studies English heritage. In addition, part of the reasoning and a water cycle of any development should be to recognise the study. value of the land. Why should we take good quality agricultural land permanently out of production, when there is plenty land in the region which will never be able grow food? This should be a serious consideration in a situation where the demand for food and energy is steadily increasing? Of the three options I believe only option 3 should Noted Haverhill Question be considered as the other two options would 1978 Mr Holloway Strategic 8 impinge upon Great Wratting which is a Sites conservation village. This would be unacceptable. We feel it is essential that all necessary Noted. Haverhill infrastructure be put in place before any The Council is Sturmer Parish Question 2549 Mr D Porth Strategic development either business to residential is working in Council 8 Sites permitted. Of particular concern to Sturmer partnership with residents is the potential for excess water run-off other agencies Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation from any future development in Haverhill which will including service cause flooding of Stour Brook in Sturmer and providers who further downstream. Flood prevention measures can use this must be provided. We are concerned about the information to potential increase in traffic and particularly about bring forward any the lack of any progress in developing a northern required bypass for the town. It is our view that this improvements. A essential piece of infrastructure should be put in substantial place before there are major housing evidence base developments. has been produced including infrastructure and environmental capacity studies, a water cycle study and a strategic flood risk assessment. No comment on any specific site except to confirm Noted that a sequential approach should be taken in identifying development sites with a preference of Haverhill brownfield land. Greenfield should only be Frontier Estates Frontier Estates Question 2398 Strategic developed once brownfield sites have been Ltd Limited 8 Sites exhausted. The core strategy should make clear that none of the strategic sites should be brought forward until current allocations have been developed. Mr Tom Mytton- Withersfield Parish Question Haverhill Option 1 We agree with part of this option. South Noted 1902 Mills Council 8 Strategic West of A1307 together with the area already Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Sites agreed for a science park. We disagree with the area near the flood park and Howe Wood as it is prone to flooding and we also feel that the flood park needs room for expansion to cope with extra water from the developed sites. This proposed site is also less than 1 kilometre away from Withersfield and we feel that this would destroy our rural integrity. Option 2 We strongly disagree with this proposed site for the following reasons ; All of this proposed area is within 1 kilometre from our settlement boundary. Flooding – all surface water from area 2 will be down stream of the flood park and will go into the town unchecked. Increased Traffic with no infrastructure to cope therefore increasing traffic through the villages. We were assured that the Meadowlands road would be the Northern Boundary of Haverhill Option 3 We agree with this option as it is nearest to the centre of Haverhill and its facilities. Haverhill Noted Mrs Maggi Market Weston Parish Question 1890 Strategic No Weston Council 8 Sites I favour only Option 3 for reasons as follows:- Noted. Options 1 and 2 come much too close to The Council has Withersfield which as a conservation village must worked closely Haverhill Question have more space between it and the outer limits of with Braintree 1943 Joela Fenton Strategic 8 Haverhill. Option 1 area has problems with flooding District Council Sites now. More building would exacerbate this problem. when considering For Option 2, when the Buchanan Report was first locations for introduced we were assured in Withersfield that the strategic growth, Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation through road at Meadowland would be the northern however at this boundary of the expansion. There is a 4th option time it is not and a 5th for you to consider. The area south of the perceived to be bypass should not be rejected just because it is on suitable to locate high ground. That might have been a consideration development when Haverhill experienced its first expansion but south of the the need for more building brings this large site into A1017. the picture and it should not be overlooked. Why not have a dialogue with Essex to effect a boundary The distribution change southwest of the bypass. This would ease for growth has the constriction that expanding Haverhill now has. been reassessed Nine years ago this idea was put to Gerry Massey with the but he seemed unable to entertain it. Perhaps his publication of the successor has more courage. I cannot agree the Core Strategy. 40-40-20 split between Bury, Haverhill and the villages. Bury with its large retail areas both central and out of town, hospital, hotels, theatre, entertainment facilities should and could take a far greater proportion of the growth, 60-30-10 would be more in order. It is a pity the Buchanan Report was dusted off and reintroduced when new thinking was required. Noted. In part disagree with all three options. 1. The site Policy CS3 1, the area north of the A1307 devalues the Protecting Haverhill Question approach to the village of Withersfield. 2. This site Settlement 2022 Ms Anne Bent Strategic 8 destroys Withersfield’s identity 3. As indicated site 3 Identity will Sites is very near the village of Kedington if kept away ensure that could be acceptable. strategic growth will not threaten Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation the integrity of villages that surrounds Haverhill. 1. As mentioned above, the split of potential Noted. development between Haverhill and Bury seems The distribution unreasonable and Haverhill should have less for growth has development than Bury. • We understand that been reassessed sewage treatment is already a problem in the with the Haverhill area. • The main A1307 is a very publication of the dangerous road and there are already major Core Strategy. difficulties on it at peak periods. This road is a further reason for development in Haverhill to be as minimal as possible. 2. Most of the suggested areas Haverhill is part for development are to the north of Haverhill of the Cambridge encroaching onto Withersfield, which is a Sub-Region and, Haverhill Felicity and Question conservation area. This makes a mockery of having along with a ring 2149 Strategic Michael Slinger 8 a village as a conservation area if development is so of other market Sites close that the village effectively becomes part of towns, meets the the town. To maintain the integrity of the village, housing needs no further development should be permitted north which cannot be of the town (areas 1 and 2), and the road to met by Meadowlands should be the boundary between Cambridge alone. Withersfield and Haverhill. (We understand that the It is Council’s own policy is to maintain the integrity of acknowledged its villages). • Additionally, area 1 is subject to that there is an flooding and is partially in a flood plain, and more ongoing need for hard standing/ roads will exacerbate the problem. • investment in The road from Haverhill to Withersfield is a bad “rat transport run” already and is simply unsuitable for more infrastructure in Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation traffic than it already has, which is both noisy and South dangerous. Access to and from properties in Cambridgeshire, Withersfield onto that road, and the road through not only to the village, is fraught with problems at most times address the issue and requires more than usual care. The road of commuting, through Withersfield to West Wratting and Thurlow but to meet the is the main access to the north of Cambridge and needs of the local Newmarket for people from Haverhill and further economy. development will create enormous problems. 3. We Service providers, therefore DISAGREE with two of the potential sites including Anglian for development in Haverhill – Areas 1 and 2 and Water, have been consider that the only acceptable site is Area 3, involved in the subject to the other comments made. 4. No LDF process and attempt appears to have been made to consider are aware of the again the land to the south west of the town levels of growth between the bypass and the county boundary. planned for Much more consideration should be given to such Haverhill. Anglian expansion and further consultation should be taking Water can use place with the adjoining county councils to consider this information this, which is far less likely to encroach on existing to plan future villages. 5. Area 3 also likely to encroach on sewage treatment another village, (Kedington), but this is not a capacity. conservation area and is identified as a key service centre, so if the south west of the town is unacceptable, then this would be the only suitable side of those suggested for expansion. Haverhill Regeneration is required and development would Noted Bernard Question 2459 Strategic be better suited here than engulfing Bury St Woolston 8 Sites Edmunds as it would suit existing housing policy. Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Haverhill Noted Question Only comment Linton Road has better access that 2660 Mr David Abrey Strategic 8 Bury-Haverhill Sites Noted. Haverhill is part of the Cambridge Any further development in Haverhill unless jobs Sub-Region and, are available in the town will just cause further along with a ring congestion on the A1307, leading to yet more 'rat of other market runners' using roads through villages to bypass the towns, meets the A1307. If there is to be further major development housing needs in Haverhill, a major improvement of the A1307 which cannot be funded by development in Haverhill should be met by provided through to Cambridge with a Haverhill Cambridge alone. 'Park & Ride' location offering express limited It is Haverhill services to the major employment locations within acknowledged Mrs Jennifer West Wratting Parish Question 2716 Strategic the Cambridge area. To coincide with this that there is an Richards Council 8 Sites employers in Cambridge area should be required to ongoing need for offer subsidised travel by bus to employees living in investment in Haverhill.. Additionally funds from developers transport should be made available to the villages between infrastructure in Haverhill and Cambridge for them to use to protect South their village amenity and take steps to control the Cambridgeshire, speed of traffic on minor roads. The continuing not only to growth of Bury St Edmunds provides a more address the issue sustainable development option served as it is by of commuting, the high quality A14. but to meet the needs of the local economy.

Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Haverhill Noted Question Haverhill is in need of development and will best 2786 Mr Gary King Strategic 8 serve the expansion of Stansted Sites Noted. Haverhill is part Haverhill has absorbed high levels of housing of the Cambridge growth in recent years and will continue to do so in Sub-Region and, the immediate future by virtue of the extant local along with a ring plan strategic housing allocation. Given that the of other market town currently exhibits high levels of out towns, meets the commuting it would be unsustainable to provide housing needs further major housing growth at Haverhill as this which cannot be would exacerbate the imbalance between homes met by and jobs and increase levels of out commuting. Cambridge alone. Berkeley Strategic proposes that the level of It is housing to be allocated should be reduced in line Haverhill acknowledged Question with regional planning policy. The proposed 3181 Jon Lambert Berkeley Strategic Strategic that there is an 8 reduction in the level of growth would result in the Sites ongoing need for need to provide approximately 2,000 new homes at investment in Haverhill by 2031 in addition to existing transport commitments, rather than the 3,100 proposed in infrastructure in the Preferred Options Core Strategy. This lower South housing requirement would still require the release Cambridgeshire, of greenfield sites at Haverhill but would provide for not only to a lower level of housing growth, which in address the issue combination with policies to increase the level of of commuting, employment at the town, would help address the but to meet the existing imbalance between homes and jobs and needs of the local resultant levels of out commuting. economy.

Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation EEDA have no comments to make on the identified Noted sites other than to welcome the fact that our previous comments have now been reflected and Haverhill that these locations are identified as potentially Question 3201 Natalie Blaken Strategic mixed-use developments in securing sustainable Development Agency 8 Sites urban areas. Clearly, in developing your preferred options for strategic sites, a more specific approach to land use and the nature of employment in particular will be required. We are disappointed about the absence of Noted ecological information on Map 5.2. See also the additional comments section. Option 1 Haverhill Western Edge There are several County Wildlife Natural England - Haverhill Sites within this broad area, and any development Question 2970 Dr Alison Collins Norfolk & Suffolk Strategic here will need to take into account the 8 Government Team Sites requirements of NI197 to adequately protect and buffer these sites and their wider connections. Option 3 Haverhill North-Eastern Edge. Caution is needed here as the area forms part of a wider ecological asset and wildlife corridor. From the Highways Agency’s perspective, the town Noted Haverhill of Haverhill is located some distance from the trunk Question 2859 Davina Galloway Highways Agency Strategic road network and therefore there would appear to 8 Sites be scope for sustainable development within Haverhill which would have little impact on the A14. 1. Bury St. Edmunds has far better facilities (such Noted. Haverhill as hospitals, schools, railway access, shops etc. The distribution Mrs Rosemary Question 3069 Strategic Than Haverhill, so surely it would make more sense for growth has Wenham 8 Sites for the breakdown of where the houses have to go been reassessed to be OVER 40% in Bury St. Edmunds , under 40% with the Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation in Haverhill and 20% in villages. 2. As a resident of publication of the Withersfield I am concerned at the potential Core Strategy. approach of Haverhill in the direction of Withersfield. At the time of the Buchanan report in 1999 we were told that in order to maintain its rural Haverhill is part integrity, a village should have a clear boundary of of the Cambridge at least half-a-kilometre (as the crow flies) from an Sub-Region and, encroaching town. I do not feel that Option 2 or along with a ring Option 1 of the proposals meet this need. 3. of other market Withersfield has a clearly marked settlement towns, meets the boundary. The land in Options 1 and 2 for Haverhill housing needs expansion is within the parish of Withersfield but which cannot be clearly outside the settlement boundary. I would be met by unhappy to see the boundary between Haverhill Cambridge alone. and Withersfield change yet again. It has already It is changed on more than one occasion to meet the acknowledged needs of Haverhill's expansion. 4. Sewerage: I that there is an understand that there is not much more capacity ongoing need for for the sewerage system of Haverhill currently. I investment in have concerns about the implications on this transport already stressed system if a further few thousand infrastructure in houses are built within Haverhill. 5. South Communications: Many inhabitants of Haverhill Cambridgeshire, travel to Cambridge, Stansted, Granta Park along not only to the A 1307 for work purposes. This road is already address the issue a major hazard and traffic jam. Further cars on this of commuting, road will snarl it up completely. 6. With point 5 in but to meet the mind, it is important that any future development of needs of the local Haverhill ensures that there are sufficient jobs in economy. Haverhill to mean that people do not have to leave Service providers, the town to go to work. including Anglian Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Water, have been involved in the LDF process and are aware of the levels of growth planned for Haverhill. Anglian Water can use this information to plan future sewage treatment capacity. I see this as a resurrection of the 1999 Buchanan Noted. Report with no new ideas added. You could easily Haverhill is part have produced accurate plans on the pamphlet if of the Cambridge you had wanted to. Those produced are extremely Sub-Region and, misleading! Of the three sites suggested I can along with a ring favour only Option 3. Regarding Options1 and 2, we of other market have been told so often that the road through towns, meets the Meadowlands was to be the northern boundary in housing needs Haverhill Question order to maintain the integrity of Withersfield as a which cannot be 3068 Mr Alfred Fenton Strategic 8 conservation village. This would require no new met by Sites building within 1 kilometre of the village boundary. Cambridge alone. Your Options1 and 2 infringe this commitment It is considerably. And it is a commitment and we will acknowledged hold you to it. You should look anew at the area that there is an south of the by-pass which could take a ongoing need for considerable development. Also a move to alter the investment in Suffolk/Essex boundary in that area would solve all transport your problems. I question your 40:40:20 split infrastructure in Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation between Bury, Haverhill and the villages. Bury as a South town has ten times the shopping area of Haverhill, Cambridgeshire, a hospital and many other features of a large town. not only to It should therefore accommodate a greater portion address the issue of the growth, say 60: 30:10. Expanding Haverhill of commuting, has several difficulties. The A1307 is already but to meet the congested at peak times. I gather the Sewerage needs of the local Treatment Works has difficulty coping at present economy. and water supply also presents a problem. Area 1 is prone to flooding and more houses can only The distribution increase the problem. So much for the present. for growth has been reassessed with the publication of the Core Strategy.

Service providers, including Anglian Water, have been involved in the LDF process and are aware of the levels of growth planned for Haverhill. Anglian Water can use this information to plan future sewage treatment capacity. Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Haverhill Regeneration is required and development would Noted Lauraine Question 2372 Strategic be better suited here than engulfing Bury St Woolston 8 Sites Edmunds as it would suit existing housing policy. Support Option 1 - Haverhill Western Edge. Full Noted reasons in supporting statement. Summary: Land at Hanchett End has already been allocated for employment use in the current Local Plan 2016. Haverhill Question (Policy HAV3). The development of this gateway 2458 Mr N Haylock Strategic 8 site would strengthen and diversify the town's Sites employment base. Due to the strategic vision for Haverhill and reasons above Option 1 is supported as the most sustainable location and the preferred option. Option 1 Disagree Appears to be on a flood plain Noted Option 2 Disagree Appears to be very close to Haverhill Withersfield Should be at least 1km from outskirts Question 2479 Clare Haywood Strategic of village to protect integrity of village. Option 3 8 Sites unable to agree or disagree as the scale on the diagram is wrong it would appear to be close to Kedington Further expansion of Haverhill that resulted in Noted. increased out-commuting, especially to the It is Cambridge area, would give rise to concerns that acknowledged much of this commuting would be by car, adding that there is an Haverhill Cambridgeshire Question congestion and safety especially on the A1307, as ongoing need for 2481 Mr John Onslow Strategic Horizons Ltd 8 well as having a negative carbon impact. Therefore, investment in Sites if any future significant expansion was to go ahead, transport it should only do so if closely linked to a certainty of infrastructure in increased employment in the town. In addition any South future expansion should be dependent on Cambridgeshire, Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation infrastructure improvements, including in Cambs, not only to being provided at an early state of the address the issue development, including transport infrastructure of commuting, being in place to ensure and out-commuting and but to meet the business and other travel related to expansion are needs of the local catered for in a sustainable and safe manner. We economy. It also are concerned that there is at present insufficient has to be evidence that these matters can be adequately acknowledged addressed thereby bringing into question the that Haverhill is deliverability of large scale expansion proposals. part of the Cambridge Sub- Region and, along with a ring of other market towns, meets the housing needs which cannot be met by Cambridge alone. Such investment will require partnership working between the various parties involved and will in part be addressed by S106 contributions. 2491 Mrs P M Harper Great Abington Parish Question Haverhill The PC suggests that funding be allocated to Noted Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Council 8 Strategic improve roads, particularly the A1307 access road It is Sites into Haverhill. Perhaps the funds from any section acknowledged 106 agreements could be used to improve the that there is an A1307 to cope with a larger volume of traffic and to ongoing need for improve the safety of this road. investment in transport infrastructure in South Cambridgeshire, not only to address the issue of commuting, but to meet the needs of the local economy. Such investment will require partnership working between the various parties involved and will in part be addressed by S106 contributions. Option 1 - Haverhill Western edge - Industrial site Noted Haverhill on left of A1307 fine. Do not agree with Question 2507 Mrs J Holdom Strategic development on right handside due to flood plain 8 Sites and if it is proposed to reinstate train. Also part of proposed site does not adhere to strategic spatial Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation objectives. Option 2 - does not adhere to strategic spatial objectives Haverhill Noted Question I disagree western edge because of extra traffic on 2579 Mr C F Holdom Strategic 8 A1307 Sites In our view it is inconsistent to show one existing Noted site allocation separately from the suggested strategic sites, but to exclude another existing allocation - the Hanchett End site. The inference could be drawn that id option 1 is not selected, then the existing employment allocation for the Hanchett End site may be affected. We would Haverhill strongly suggest that it is made much clearer within Carisbrooke Question 2634 Mr N Rumsey Strategic the Core Strategy and proposals maps that Investments Ltd. 8 Sites Hanchett End site will continue to be an important employment allocation, the development of which is central to the 'vision of Haverhill', and is not merely part of a possible future strategic site. The future development of the Hanchett End site for business and employment use (B1 and B8), should not be dependent on any possible future strategic site allocation in the area to the west of Haverhill. The consultation report in 2008 showed clear Noted Haverhill Question support for housing development and regeneration 2695 Ms Tina Bedford Strategic 8 in this region. Haverhill meets the development Sites requirements of the housing policy Haverhill Noted D & E M Question Haverhill needs regeneration. No views on 2789 Strategic Bollworthy 8 particular sites. Sites Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation Opposed to Options 1 & 2 1. There is already a Noted large development to this side of town and any more development would merely add to congestion to the already overburdened A1307 which has severe problems with traffic accessing the road. 2. There had been no concrete evidence/financial incentives from the government confirming that they will improve the A1307. Without this the situation will only get worse. 3. Between Withersfield and Hanchett End there is already a balancing pond etc which takes the run off from these areas. Anymore water run off would merely increase the run off which runs towards Haverhill town centre thus causing more environmental Haverhill problems. Preferred Option 3 - is the preferred Robinson & Question 2777 Strategic option for the following reasons: 1. It will give Gray 8 Sites Haverhill a more balanced effect with the new houses to both sides of the town, this would help integrate the town. 2. A new Tesco development is in the process of being built on this side of town thus further adding to the argument of a balanced town with two major supermarkets on either side of town. 3.With a new supermarket to this side of town it may well reduce the carbon footprint as 10,000 people travelling 1 - 2 miles is more environmentally friendly than them travelling 3 - 4 miles to the other supermarket. 4. Option 3 is a more natural extension to the town rather than Options 1 & 2 which will look like and extended add on. 5. Would have an enormous visual impact on the skyline of the small hamlet of Great Wratting. Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation The following comments are made in addition to Noted those outlined in the Site Allocations Issues & Options Document regarding BAP species etc and those comments appended to this response. SCC would like to point out the importance of phasing development in Haverhill so as not to exacerbate the current trends in commuting. SCC would welcome further initiatives that may alleviate the issue, whether they be designed at improving the sustainability of transport links to Cambridge or at Haverhill reducing commuting altogether. SCC believes the Question 2831 Michael Wilks Suffolk County Council Strategic continued development of the Biotech and other 8 Sites high skilled industries in Haverhill are paramount to the regeneration of the town and every opportunity should be taken to nurture the industry. Site 1: Issue of out commuting – attractive to Cambridge Quite remote from town centre and beyond existing sustainable links-could sustainable links be created? Site 2: Quite remote from town centre Context- new development on new development Attractiveness - higher ground – need for screening Site 3: Closest to town centre Furthest from Cambridge Strong sustainable links will be required Haverhill It is a question for Haverhill residents. But it is Noted Mr & Mrs L B Question 2998 Strategic linked to the preservation of historic Suffolk towns. Foster 8 Sites Their slow demise is a blow for our British heritage. Pl see responses within Qs. 3 and 4. Noted. Haverhill Question Notwithstanding the overall limitations raised in the It is 3038 Wendy Hague Strategic 8 questions above, the statement within the Vision for acknowledged Sites Haverhill relating to the promotion of the A1307 as that there is an Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation a strategic public transport corridor does require ongoing need for formal evaluation with key partners. The existing investment in safety record of the A1307 between Haverhill and transport Cambridge is of concern to Cambridgeshire County infrastructure in Council and additional development traffic on this South route would be of concern if, as seems likely, some Cambridgeshire, of the new residents would work in Cambridge. not only to There are also existing capacity concerns on this address the issue corridor, and development in Haverhill could of commuting, exacerbate these problems, particularly in the but to meet the context of: • the detrimental impact increased needs of the local congestion would have on the reliability of bus economy. services • the operation of the A1307 in peak hours,. • the potential for rat running to avoid congestion. If proposals for Haverhill are to be taken forward, quantification of the likely impact on the road network in Cambridgeshire, particularly on the A1307 corridor should be provided in order to allow a robust assessment of the appropriateness of the development scenario and consideration of what mitigation measures should be included in plan policy. In this context, in order to take a view on the options that propose development in Haverhill, Cambridgeshire County Council would require quantification of the likely impacts in terms of traffic and travel demand on the A1307 corridor. It should be demonstrated as part of the assessment of options that the level and reliability of public transport services on the A1307 can be maintained and that the safety and capacity of the A1307 is not adversely affected. Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation We support the allocation of land at Haverhill Noted Haverhill Vesty Question Western Edge (Option 1). Additional information 3137 Strategic Settlement 8 has been submitted to demonstrate that the site is Sites suitable for development, available and deliverable. We support the allocation of land at Haverhill Noted E H Vesty's Haverhill Question Northern Edge (Option 2). Additional information 3136 Marriage Bidwells Strategic 8 has been submitted to demonstrate that the site is Settlement Sites suitable for development, available and deliverable. The Replacement Local Plan states that the site Noted. allocated for development at North West Haverhill This is reflected can accommodate up to 755 dwellings to 2016 and in the Submission acknowledges that there is potential for additional Core Strategy. dwellings to be accommodated on the site beyond this time period. The allocated land totals 42 hectares, and it is evident that when taking into account the size of the site and the number of dwellings to be built on the site by 2016, that there is significant capacity on the site to accommodate North West Haverhill Question more dwellings post 2016. However, the status of 3147 Haverhill Bidwells Strategic 8 the allocation at North West Haverhill is unclear in Landowners Con Sites the Core Strategy Preferred Options DPD and there is no indication of the total number of dwellings that could be accommodated on the site and no acknowledgement in Table 5.1 ‘Housing Requirements’ that additional dwellings from the allocation will contribute to the overall housing numbers required within the Borough. We support the proactive approach adopted by the Council in seeking to identify strategic sites in Haverhill for future growth but believe that the 42 hectares of Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation land allocated for residential use under Policy HAV2 in the Replacement Local Plan should be prioritised for development. In order to prioritise the allocation, we consider that phasing should be included within the Core Strategy DPD to ensure that the development at North West Haverhill comes forward within the early stages of the Core Strategy DPD plan period. The site is available and deliverable and is at an advanced stage in terms of the planning process. There is a Concept Statement relating to the site, which was adopted in October 2007. The masterplan for the site is at an advanced stage and is due to go to public consultation early in 2009. It is anticipated that a planning application for development on the allocated site will be submitted in early to mid 2009. The site can accommodate up to 1,300 dwellings as part of an allocated sustainable urban extension to Haverhill and additional reports are attached to demonstrate the availability, suitability and deliverability of the site to accommodate these additional dwellings. We support the allocation of land at Haverhill North Noted Haverhill Question Eastern Edge (Option 3). Additional information has 3153 Mrs Pelly Strategic 8 been submitted to demonstrate that the site is Sites suitable for development, available and deliverable. I disagree with all three sites as they encroach on Noted Haverhill the rural areas of Withersfield, Great Wratting and Policy CS3 Mr Phillip Question 3196 Strategic Kedington. It is essential (indeed government Protecting Stainer 8 Sites policy) that the rural areas must be protected. Settlement Besides under the new credit crunch, the new Identity will Question 8 ‐ Haverhill Strategic Sites Comments

Company / Response ID Full Name Question Title Comment Organisation houses will not be required. ensure that strategic growth will not threaten the integrity of villages that surrounds Haverhill. A number of sites put forward across the borough are I would like the Council to consider including the Haverhill subject to a Question area outlined in red on the attached maps. The 3211 Christine Alberry Strategic separate, but 8 houses already on this site need updating due to Sites parallel flooding and new homes will solve this problem. consultation as part of the Site Allocations Plan Document.