Home > Planning > Planning Policy

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

Representation 9161 on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) by Wendy Shorrock

Support / Object: OBJECT
Document Link: BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Sproughton , SS0711 - Land east of Loraine Way
Representation: site not appropriate for development due to:
Creeping coalescence between Bramford and Sproughton.

Original submission

Dear Sir,

I am writing to lodge my response to the BMSDC JLP Consultation document. Could you please confirm receipt of my submission and include me in the mailing list for updates on the progress of the JLP, thanks.

Section 1 -Strategic

Objectives:

- The JLP should aim to ensure that the local road networks in and around Sproughton village are capable of supporting any proposed developments.
- The JLP should ensure that all necessary infrastructure and services are delivered to support any proposed developments.

Priorities:

- The proposed developments should not cause local communities, such as Sproughton, to lose their identities, as a result of 'creeping coalescence ' ie, merging Ipswich with surrounding villages.

Duty to Cooperate:

- Ipswich should not be imposing 4000 new houses under this Duty to cooperate rule. How is Ipswich's total overspill requirement being spread across other surrounding councils?

Section 2 - Delivery

Housing requirement, Settlement Hierarchy and Housing Distribution

The Housing requirement 2014 to 2036 appears overstated @7820, particularly as this is based on 1.03 persons per house, as opposed to past average of 2.3. This begs the question of whether this forecast is current and has taken full account of our leaving the EU, and related domestic and overseas migration estimates.

Spatial Distribution

A planning approach which is more New Settlement Focused would enable existing communities such as Sproughton to retain their village identity. I favour an approach which goes down the bold, innovative and creative route, rather than encouraging Ipswich to pursue 'creeping coalescence' which will ultimately destroy the local communities in its immediate vicinity.

Other Distribution Options

The JLP proposes a high proportion of the housing growth to be in Sproughton, because of its close proximity to ipswich. I would prefer a more proportional approach, which would support the development of communities across Babergh, enabling necessary infrastructure and services to develop organically alongside sustainable housing growth, whilst also avoiding the destruction of villages such as Sproughton!

New Settlement

Following on from comments above, I support the creation of a new / garden town separate from current settlements, in order to protect the nature of existing communities. This seems to me to be the only reasonable way of meeting the objectives of the Babergh JLP as well as the Duty to Cooperate rule being imposed by the Ipswich plan.

Section 3 - Place

Consultation question 78
SS1024 - site not appropriate for development due to:
- The environment (Chantry Vale)
- creeping coalescence with Ipswich
- lack of supporting infrastructure (schools and health)

SS0721 - site appropriate for development but:
- not clear why some of the site has not been allocated to housing.
- given that the site has been available for development for approaching 16 years, why has development not taken place earlier, if the requirement for additional commercial and housing development around Ipswich is so pressing?

SS1023 - Site not appropriate for development due to:
- The environment (Chantry Vale)
- creeping coalescence with Ipswich
- lack of supporting infrastructure and services (schools and health)

SS0711 - site not appropriate for development due to:
Creeping coalescence between Bramford and Sproughton.



Regards


Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult