Local Plan Update

World of Planning July 2016

Summary of Options consultation responses

In total

523 individuals / organisations

3,420 comments Summary of Options consultation responses

Questions 217 individuals / organisations 2,205 comments

Sites 424 individuals / organisations 1,215 comments Summary of Options consultation responses Comments on sites (top 10 areas)

241 and Holton 59 Lound 200 58 Barnby 167 and 51 109 40 100 31 Summary of Responses to Key Spatial Options Where should the growth go? Where should the growth go? Where should the growth go? Where should the growth go? Where should the growth go? Overall results Where should the growth go?

Results from Beccles Results from Bungay & Worlingham Where should the growth go?

Results from Halesworth & Holton Results from & Reydon Where should the growth go?

Results from Lowestoft Results from rural area Where should the Growth Go? – Response from Statutory and Other Consultees

• GNLP – no preference but not the potential for growth in Beccles and Bungay to support South • County Council – growth options could be accommodated in transport network -concern about dispersed patterns of growth. • Beccles Society – Option 3 • Halesworth and Blyth Partnership – Option 3 • Lowestoft &Yarmouth Regional Astronomers - Option 3 • Southwold & District Chamber of Trade & Commerce and Southwold and Reydon Society - Option 1,2,or 4 - up to 3% in Southwold and Reydon • – no preference but options should take into account ecologically sensitive areas.

Where should the growth go? – Response from Parish and Town Councils

• Beccles – no more than 10% to Beccles/Worlingham • – preference for brownfield sites – no more development in Carlton Colville. • Halesworth – Option 3 • Ilketshall St. Lawrence - Option 3 • Ilketshall St. Margaret - Option 2 • – wherever employment can be created • Oulton – Option 3 • Reydon – Growth should be focussed in Lowestoft and Beccles • – Option 2 • Southwold – Option 3 is not viable • Worlingham – majority of development to Lowestoft, but even spread to other market towns of Bungay and Halesworth.

Where should the growth go? – Response from Developers and Landowners

• Benacre Estates – Option 3 • Badger Building – Option 3 • Frostdrive and NHS N&S Trust – Option 1 • Gladman Developments – maximise locations and number of sites allocated. • Larkfleet Homes – Option2 • M J Edwards & Partners - Option 3 • Savills on behalf of south Lowestoft landowners – Option 1 • The Somerleyton Estate and the Estate - Option 3 • St John's Hall Farms – none of the options • Wellington Construction – combinaiton of 1,2 and 4

Where should the growth go? – Response from Members of Public –Option 1

• Job opportunities available in Lowestoft • Development in Lowestoft will benefit the rest of the District • Lowestoft has better Land availability and provision of infrastructure • Lowestoft has had too much growth in recent years • Traffic congestion in Lowestoft • Lowestoft seen as a ‘downmarket’ area

Where should the growth go? – Response from Members of Public – Option 2 • Beccles seems to be thriving • Infrastructure in place to accommodate growth • Infrastructure such as schools, doctors and dentists in Beccles and Worlingham would not be able to cope with this level of development • Development could damage the unique character of market towns • Traffic impacts on the town’s roads

Where should the growth go? – Response from Members of Public – Option 3 • Help support market towns to thrive • Would help stop the exodus of younger people from market towns • Better support an ageing population by giving more choice for older people to live close to their families • Encourage better transport links in rural areas and support shops and pubs and small schools • New development in rural areas would not support local services as people who live in them will continue to shop and work in towns. • Too much housing in small towns will change the character and spoil their appeal • Too much traffic congestion • Too much growth for Bungay which, without a bypass, will create traffic congestion • Market towns do not have the infrastructure to absorb new residents.

Where should the growth go? – Response from Members of Public – Option 4 • New settlement could be built with the infrastructure to support it and avoids overloading existing infrastructure. • Less traffic congestion • A new settlement between Lowestoft and would enable better access to health facilities at the James Paget Hospital • Concern about the amount of infrastructure that would need to be provided • Impact on existing towns • Could spoil the rural character of the area

Other Options Suggested

• Beccles society – variant of option 3 – increase Lowestoft to 60% reduce Beccles to 12% and Rural areas to 10%. • Larkfleet Homes – range for Beccles between 25 and 35%. • St Johns Hall Farms – 8% in Bungay • Members of Public – – 95% in Lowestoft. – Option 3 but with 60% in Lowestoft and 10% in Beccles. – More development in Bungay as the place is moving towards becoming a ghost town. – Significantly more social housing in Southwold to deter second homes. – Increased development in Halesworth due to its railway station. – Growth based on capacity of infrastructure to cope with development. – Every village should be allowed some development say 1 property per year to allow the next generation to remain. – Less than 10% growth allocated to Beccles. – Allow the market to decide with some areas protected from development.

Where Could a New Settlement Be Located? • Halesworth • South side of Lowestoft • In the area between • Around Beccles Barnby and Gisleham • Between Halesworth and Beccles • Brampton on the train line • Lound • North of Wrentham • Blundeston • Between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth • Between Carlton Colville/Lowestoft and Beccles. Next Steps

• Further work on objectively assessed need • Refining the strategy • Infrastructure and transport requirements • Further site assessments • Targeted engagement • Next public consultation on first draft plan – Spring 2017