Home > Planning > Planning Policy

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

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - SS0721 - Former Sugar Beet Factory Site, Sproughton Road

Representation ID: 13254

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposed
It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site and the enterprise zone only covering part of the site why a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 13254

Representation ID: 13018

COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

The Local Plan needs to support the employment development proposed at the Sproughton Enterprise Park (former Sugar Beet Factory site), site reference SS0721.

More details about Rep ID: 13018

Representation ID: 13012

SUPPORT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposed

More details about Rep ID: 13012

Representation ID: 12779

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 12779

Representation ID: 12721

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 12721

Representation ID: 12631

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
However, why - given the size of the site was some not allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 12631

Representation ID: 11901

COMMENT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 11901

Representation ID: 11856

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

SS0721: Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 11856

Representation ID: 11575

OBJECT Annette Powell

Summary:

SS0721: Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
However, why - given the size of the site was some not allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 11575

Representation ID: 11450

COMMENT Greenways Countryside Project Partnership (Mr. James Baker)

Summary:

the former sugar factory site clearly has development potential, but should include significant areas of green space including the 'island nature reserve' (between the 2 courses of the river); a wide riverside corridor maintaining the rural footpath feel; a new multi-use cycle/wheel-friendly route through any new development (for leisure, but also importantly as a means of green travel to the site for workers) linking back to the river path at each end of the site; a substantial area of semi-natural green space north of the river at the western end, and facilities to allow visitors to enjoy the site and launch canoes in the river.

More details about Rep ID: 11450

Representation ID: 11391

COMMENT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
* It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 11391

Representation ID: 11129

COMMENT Peter Warren

Summary:

This site is already designated as employment land. It could well be considered more preferable to allocate limited residential use given the size of the site. Surely a better option than SS1023 and SS1024.

More details about Rep ID: 11129

Representation ID: 11038

OBJECT chattisham and hintlesham parish council (mrs samantha barber)

Summary:

What about reclassifying the 130 acre Sugar Beet factory site for residential development ? That would meet almost half of the required housing and it has excellent transport links.

More details about Rep ID: 11038

Representation ID: 10969

COMMENT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal. It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 10969

Representation ID: 10774

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
However, why - given the size of the site was some not allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 10774

Representation ID: 10709

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Development would start to merge Sproughton with Ipswich. If there is a genuine need for housing in Sproughton and Babergh then the houses that may be needed should be proportionate to the size of the present communities.

More details about Rep ID: 10709

Representation ID: 10474

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
* It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 10474

Representation ID: 10454

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
* It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 10454

Representation ID: 10036

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
* It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 10036

Representation ID: 9935

SUPPORT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal. It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 9935

Representation ID: 9678

COMMENT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal. It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 9678

Representation ID: 9612

SUPPORT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal. It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing

More details about Rep ID: 9612

Representation ID: 9159

COMMENT Wendy Shorrock

Summary:

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?

More details about Rep ID: 9159

Representation ID: 8872

SUPPORT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.

It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 8872

Representation ID: 6597

COMMENT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

SS0721: Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 6597

Representation ID: 6232

COMMENT Neil Fuller

Summary:

Site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal.
It is not clear to local residents, however, why - given the size of the site - a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 6232

Representation ID: 4069

COMMENT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

I consider this site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal. It is not clear to local residents however, that why, given the size of the site, a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 4069

Representation ID: 3902

COMMENT Mr Clive Harris

Summary:

Please include the A1071/A14 link proposal as you consider the need for additional transport infrastructure to accommodate the growth planned. This link would help to relieve congestion (a) on the A1214 (London Road) in the region of Poplar Lane and Tesco, and at the A12/A14 Copdock Interchange, and (b) in Sproughton village. It would also provide an A14 off network emergency diversion route that avoids Sproughton village

More details about Rep ID: 3902

Representation ID: 3872

COMMENT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

I consider this site appropriate for development, subject to the scheme proposal. It is not clear to local residents however, that why, given the size of the site, a portion may not be allocated to housing.

More details about Rep ID: 3872

Representation ID: 395

SUPPORT mrs karen howard

Summary:

I support this development solely if other developments do not then take place and that they do not disturb any other green areas around the site. Traffic from here is unlikely to head into Sproughton (Which is struggling with traffic volume already) and will more likely connect with A14 or head into Ipswich. This site needs to be used for something as it is a real white elephant. This should be the ONLY development to take place in Sproughton. It should not be allowed to Impact in any way with ANY land the village side of the A14.

More details about Rep ID: 395

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

Powered by OpusConsult