Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

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) - Q63

Representation ID: 13196

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

We consider that Option INF 1 is the most appropriate option and as the NPPF provides sufficient information regarding the provision of infrastructure that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision should not be required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 13196

Representation ID: 12983

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

Since no actual strategy associated to INF2 is stated it is difficult to say which is appropriate but if that strategy dissolves their responsibilities it would appear to be inappropriate.
But if adopted with the condition that all formally agreed infrastructure agreements are adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 12983

Representation ID: 12811

COMMENT East Bergholt Parish Council (Valerie Ayton)

Summary:

Infrastructure policy is ill defined until the IDP is available, but needs clearly to articulate with the spatial distribution policy and be forward looking. So comments on options and policies are at this stage hypothetical, other than to say improving existing provision to achieve high quality scores across all categories of infrastucture in the IDP is a priority before even considering what is appropriate for new development. Fibre to all homes and places of work is an essential. EB still lacking basic good mobile and broadband signals/speeds and no clear upgrade plans are currently available.
We support INF2 that addresses cumulative growth. This is essential.

More details about Rep ID: 12811

Representation ID: 12756

COMMENT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

* We therefore fully support Option INF 2 that provides a strategic approach over and above the NPPF for cumulative growth, but with the caveat that infrastructure policies are adhered to.
* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure ie from Health to Transport.

More details about Rep ID: 12756

Representation ID: 12682

COMMENT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

It is essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are phased and delivered as the development progresses. Past experience has shown this has not always been the case. I therefore fully support Option INF 2 that provides a strategic approach over and above the NPPF for cumulative growth, but with the caveat that infrastructure policies are adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 12682

Representation ID: 12616

COMMENT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* We therefore fully support Option INF 2 that provides a strategic approach over and above the NPPF for cumulative growth, but with the caveat that infrastructure policies are adhered to.
* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure ie from Health to Transport.

More details about Rep ID: 12616

Representation ID: 12514

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)

Summary:

We consider that Option INF 1 is the most appropriate option and as the NPPF provides sufficient information regarding the provision of infrastructure that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision should not be required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 12514

Representation ID: 12423

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

INF 2 - Especially with regard to education as our village school is now full to capacity and because it is a successful school and is attracting out of catchment children and therefore it is essential to increase capacity and ensure sufficient funding is put in place when numbers increase. A robust and strategic plan must be put in place to ensure the provision is ready to accept increased numbers.

More details about Rep ID: 12423

Representation ID: 12357

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

We consider that Option INF 1 is the most appropriate option and as the NPPF provides sufficient information regarding the provision of infrastructure that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision should not be required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 12357

Representation ID: 12019

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

It is important that new development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. If infrastructure can be provided in a timely fashion, local communities are more likely to be accepting of housing growth, as there will be mitigation in place to address increased pressure on services and infrastructure networks. As such, option INF2 is preferred, as a specific policy will provide a stronger framework for planning for infrastructure delivery. In addition, infrastructure requirements can be 'embedded' into site-specific policies where appropriate to do so,

More details about Rep ID: 12019

Representation ID: 12002

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

It is important that new development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. If infrastructure can be provided in a timely fashion, local communities are more likely to be accepting of housing growth, as there will be mitigation in place to address increased pressure on services and infrastructure networks. As such, option INF2 is preferred, as a specific policy will provide a stronger framework for planning for infrastructure delivery. In addition, infrastructure requirements can be 'embedded' into site-specific policies where appropriate to do so.

More details about Rep ID: 12002

Representation ID: 11871

COMMENT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

* It is considered essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are phased and delivered as the development progresses. Past experience has shown this has not always been the case.
* We therefore fully support Option INF 2 that provides a strategic approach over and above the NPPF for cumulative growth, but with the caveat that infrastructure policies are adhered to.
* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure ie from Health to Transport.

More details about Rep ID: 11871

Representation ID: 11714

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

The draft policy for managing infrastructure provision is well meaning. However, actual experience during the period of consultation is that BDC's actions do not accord with this intent. At the Chilton Woods proposed development where clearly a new access road into this site at the Western Employment area needed to be provided so to avoid construction traffic going through residential areas. I hope in the consideration of planning conditions and S106 obligations it will be so imposed.

More details about Rep ID: 11714

Representation ID: 11565

COMMENT Annette Powell

Summary:

* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure ie from Health to Transport.

More details about Rep ID: 11565

Representation ID: 11374

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* It is considered essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are delivered at the beginning of the development. Past experience has shown this has not always been the case.
* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure i.e. from Health to Transport. For example:

o Key issues for Sproughton: highway / transport, education, health and flood risk
o Key issues for the future: education, public transport, highways, health, water, waste, energy, telecoms, leisure and environmental
o Key issues for growth: Ipswich northern route, A12/A14 improvements, A1071/B1113 commuter routes improvement and mitigation of effects on community, rail upgrades, flood management, recycling provision, Broadband improvements, school places & accessible healthcare (need specific policy).

More details about Rep ID: 11374

Representation ID: 11230

COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

We support Option INF2 to have a strategic infrastructure policy, but a policy alone is not sufficient - there needs to be a detailed infrastructure delivery plan.

Lack of infrastructure provision must be a hard barrier to development unless it can be remedied before, or in parallel with, the development. It is not acceptable for it to be left to follow.

More details about Rep ID: 11230

Representation ID: 11203

COMMENT Mr Nigel Roberts

Summary:

Infrastructure policy is only covered in generalities in the consultation draft so will remain unclear until the IDP is available, However the policy needs clearly to articulate with the spatial distribution policy and be forward looking. So comments on options and policies are at this stage hypothetical, other than to say improving the existing provision to achieve high quality scores across all categories of infrastructure in the the IDP is a priority before even considering what is appropriate for new development. Fibre to all homes and places of work is an essential. East Bergholt is still lacking basic good mobile and broadband signals/speeds and no clear upgrade plans available as far as I can see.
I would though support INF2 that addresses cumulative growth. This is essential.

More details about Rep ID: 11203

Representation ID: 11142

COMMENT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Consequently, the Council sees no need to have a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision in the locality to supplement the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) addressing issues of cumulative growth and education provision (Option INF 2). Therefore, the Council supports Option INF1 - leave to the NPPF to provide the policy framework.

More details about Rep ID: 11142

Representation ID: 11073

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that option INF2 is the most appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 11073

Representation ID: 11011

OBJECT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

Since no actual strategy associated to INF2 is stated it is difficult to say which is appropriate but if that strategy dissolves their responsibilities it would appear to be inappropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 11011

Representation ID: 10833

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

INF 2 the NPPF is too vague a document

More details about Rep ID: 10833

Representation ID: 10746

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* Overall we agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, we believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 10746

Representation ID: 10674

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

neither

More details about Rep ID: 10674

Representation ID: 10618

COMMENT Harrow Estates (Miss Cindy Wan)

Summary:

Option INF 2 should be taken forward in the emerging JLP to ensure that the development distribution approach has considered, and is supported by, the required strategic infrastructure. A plan which does not consider infrastructure requirements and the deliverability of these would not facilitate the delivery of sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 10618

Representation ID: 10487

COMMENT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure i.e. from Health to Transport. For example:

o Key issues for Sproughton: highway / transport, education, health and flood risk
o Key issues for the future: education, public transport, highways, health, water, waste, energy, telecoms, leisure and environmental
o Key issues for growth: Ipswich northern route, A12/A14 improvements, A1071/B1113 commuter routes improvement and mitigation of effects on community, rail upgrades, flood management, recycling provision, Broadband improvements, school places & accessible healthcare (need specific policy).

More details about Rep ID: 10487

Representation ID: 10443

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure i.e. from Health to Transport. For example:

o Key issues for Sproughton: highway / transport, education, health and flood risk
o Key issues for the future: education, public transport, highways, health, water, waste, energy, telecoms, leisure and environmental
o Key issues for growth: Ipswich northern route, A12/A14 improvements, A1071/B1113 commuter routes improvement and mitigation of effects on community, rail upgrades, flood management, recycling provision, Broadband improvements, school places & accessible healthcare (need specific policy).

More details about Rep ID: 10443

Representation ID: 10369

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We consider that Option INF 1 is the most appropriate option and as the NPPF provides sufficient information regarding the provision of infrastructure that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision should not be required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 10369

Representation ID: 10024

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure i.e. from Health to Transport. For example:
Key issues for Sproughton: highway / transport, education, health and flood risk
o Key issues for the future: education, public transport, highways, health, water, waste, energy, telecoms, leisure and environmental
o Key issues for growth: Ipswich northern route, A12/A14 improvements, A1071/B1113 commuter routes improvement and mitigation of effects on community, rail upgrades, flood management, recycling provision, Broadband improvements, school places & accessible healthcare (need specific policy).

More details about Rep ID: 10024

Representation ID: 9874

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

Option INF2 as the cumulative impact of growth and development on available infrastructure must be recognised. Collecting money through CIL and S106 agreements will not necessarily guarantee additional GPs can be recruited.

More details about Rep ID: 9874

Representation ID: 9834

COMMENT Earl Stonham Parish Council (Mrs Jennie Blackburn)

Summary:

There should definitely be a separate policy to manage the provision of healthcare, as well as education, as both have land requirements. GP surgeries should be included in the list of service providers to be consulted (page 65), rather than just relying on the Commissioning Groups and NHS England.

More details about Rep ID: 9834

Representation ID: 9757

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

INF1. Debenham has had significant development over the years, eg The Meadows, Henniker Road developments, but no attention has been given to amenities and infrastructure. This has resulted in an almost untenable situation with regard to medical facilities, educational provision, transport and parking facilities. Currently, far too much heavy traffic is being allowed to pass through the village and many vehicles at speeds far in excess of the limit.

More details about Rep ID: 9757

Representation ID: 9601

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

Overall I agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, I believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 9601

Representation ID: 9571

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Option INF1 is not an option as the NPPF is too vague, eg. "Development should be employment led"!

Option INF2 is better but as there is no concept of what infrastructure is in place:- left to partner organisations, capacity or lack of it is unknown. Travel outside the County area is often the only employment option. Long distant commuting to schools is inappropriate so development should be near to existing facilities to support them( unless a reduction in size is appropriate, not relying on transport which is against the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 9571

Representation ID: 9467

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

We support INF2. Particularly in relation to education. Bacton has approved or outline applications for up to 242 dwellings. This could generate a requirement for approximately 60 primary and 60 secondary school places. The existing school does not have capacity to accommodate this number. The village is in the Stowupland catchment area, which is already oversubscribed. A suitable site is available for a new primary school SS0088 which although in the parish of Wyverstone was formally Bacton Middle School.

More details about Rep ID: 9467

Representation ID: 9356

COMMENT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

In answer to Question 63 Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports the adoption of Consultation Policy INF2
The Council believes that the Planning Authority should have a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision in the locality to supplement the NPPF addressing issues of cumulative growth and education provision.
This policy is the best to address local needs and issues.

More details about Rep ID: 9356

Representation ID: 9212

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

I fully support Option INF 2 that provides a strategic approach over and above the NPPF for cumulative growth, but with the caveat that infrastructure policies are adhered to.

Option INF2 specifically mentions education but this policy needs to apply to all necessary infrastructure i.e. from Health to Transport.

More details about Rep ID: 9212

Representation ID: 9174

COMMENT J D Pickett

Summary:

I would like to support Option INF2 - to have a local strategic infrastructure policy to manage local provision to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 9174

Representation ID: 9069

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

INF2 Plans need to be in place before development, and need to reflect the needs of the existing community and any considered development of this.

More details about Rep ID: 9069

Representation ID: 8899

SUPPORT Simon Bell

Summary:

The Council needs to have its own strategic infrastructure policy. The Council needs to address the need for employment growth, housing and related infrastructure in the North of the District by considering the options for dualling the A140 bypassing key villages. This is likely to create much needed land for both housing and employment development.

More details about Rep ID: 8899

Representation ID: 8847

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

INF 2 - because local knowledge is essential

More details about Rep ID: 8847

Representation ID: 8662

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Since no actual strategy associated to INF2 is stated it is difficult to say which is appropriate but if that strategy dissolves their responsibilities it would appear to be inappropriate.
But whichever adopted, with the condition that all formally agreed infrastructure agreements are adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 8662

Representation ID: 8536

SUPPORT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Option INF2 to have a local strategic infrastructure policy to manage local provision to supplement NPPF.
Since no actual strategy associated to INF2 is stated it is difficult to say which is appropriate but if that strategy dissolves their responsibilities it would appear to be inappropriate.
But if adopted with the condition that all formally agreed infrastructure agreements are adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 8536

Representation ID: 8415

OBJECT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

While the Council supports adoption of INF2 it is concerned about the seeming preference for new free schools and academies.
Education provision requires strategic planning by the County Council to ensure the timely delivery of the right resources in the right place. Education provision should not be left to market forces.

More details about Rep ID: 8415

Representation ID: 8331

SUPPORT Ms Lesley Paris

Summary:

INF2 - more relevant and takes account of local issues.

More details about Rep ID: 8331

Representation ID: 8323

COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)

Summary:

It is essential that we develop a local strategic infrastructure policy on the lines of INF-2 to ensure that policy is responsive to local needs, and able to mitigate any undesirable consequences arising from the national policy framework provisions.

More details about Rep ID: 8323

Representation ID: 8309

COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)

Summary:

ECC would support INF 2, among the two options. This is in interests of securing a more comprehensive basis for infrastructure planning/provision, beyond the basic terms of NPPF. Cumulative growth impacts are important to consider (including circumstances where small scale growth is a substantial local feature, such as for BMS). Education provision, as NPPF makes clear, is vital form of infrastructure (or community facilities, if categorised that way). These considerations are in the interests of cross-boundary infrastructure issues and ensuring future deficits do not accrue (unless unavoidable) - to the detriment of both the BMS, plus neighbouring local authority areas.

More details about Rep ID: 8309

Representation ID: 8210

COMMENT Mr David Watts

Summary:

INF 2. It is crucial that infrastructure improvements are made to cope with the demands from extra households. Bodies other than Babergh are responsible for infrastructure so it is vital tht there is a local infrastructure plan - covering not just education, as is implied in the docum,ent, but also roads, parking, access to GP facilities. It is not good enough to levy CILs - much more pro-active local planning is essential. INFRASTRUCTURE IS KEY AND MUST BE GIVEN A HIGH PRIORITY UNLIKE AT PRESENT

More details about Rep ID: 8210

Representation ID: 8171

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

Tattingstone Parish Council would support INF1. there is no need to have own strategic infrastructure policy which might be opposed.

More details about Rep ID: 8171

Representation ID: 7975

COMMENT Dr Ian Russell

Summary:

INF2, reasons as stated in the consultation document.

Objection: The attachment sets out the need for an alternative to the Sudbury Western Relief Road. This scheme does not support Government policy or the Joint Plan or the Sudbury Vision for Prosperity. It would cause severe, irreversible environmental damage to the Stour Valley. To support our case we propose an update to the 1970s plan for a bridge at Great Cornard and adoption of the Mouchel 2002 proposal to make the centre of Sudbury a pedestrian area

More details about Rep ID: 7975

Representation ID: 7832

SUPPORT Mr John Foster

Summary:

INF 2 is required to ensure infrastructure provision is timely. Much greater clarity is required to avoid the erratic and inconsistent planning decisions seen recently. See BAPTC submission for greater detail.

More details about Rep ID: 7832

Representation ID: 7782

COMMENT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

Support Option INF 2

More details about Rep ID: 7782

Representation ID: 7706

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

INF2 because local knowledge is essential in knowing what is needed and is in the spirit of having a local plan.

More details about Rep ID: 7706

Representation ID: 7690

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

The draft policy for managing infrastructure provision is well meaning. However, our actual experience during the period of consultation is that BDC's actions do not accord with this intent. At the Chilton Woods proposed development where clearly a new access road into this site at the Western Employment area needed to be provided so to avoid construction traffic going through residential areas. We hope in the consideration of planning conditions and S106 obligations it will be so imposed.

More details about Rep ID: 7690

Representation ID: 7622

SUPPORT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Supported for the reasons set out in the document; delivery against infrastructure agreements is key however.

More details about Rep ID: 7622

Representation ID: 7552

SUPPORT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Supported for the reasons set out in the document; delivery against infrastructure agreements is key however.

More details about Rep ID: 7552

Representation ID: 7492

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

IF2 All developments must be provide the necessary infrastructure. There should be a legally binding agreement when planning permission is granted to make sure this occurs.

More details about Rep ID: 7492

Representation ID: 7383

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council feels INF2 is the most appropriate option.

More details about Rep ID: 7383

Representation ID: 7350

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

INF2 more appropriate INF1 to vague

More details about Rep ID: 7350

Representation ID: 7247

COMMENT Mickfield Parish Council (Mike Heyhoe)

Summary:

A strategic approach should ensure that all future development including provision of adequate infrastructure is "joined up" and that policy is not developed piecemeal.

More details about Rep ID: 7247

Representation ID: 7243

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

INF2 but it is imperative to recognise the impoirtance of establishing appropriate infrastructure *before* any development takes place

More details about Rep ID: 7243

Representation ID: 7161

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

INF 2 is supported. There needs to be in place a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision int he locality which will supplement the NPPF and address issues of the impact of cumulative growth and education provision. Without such policies in place growth will be developer led with a lack of coherent infrastructure as to the deliverability of such growth.

More details about Rep ID: 7161

Representation ID: 7052

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

INF2. This is the most responsive and locally targeted option

More details about Rep ID: 7052

Representation ID: 6745

COMMENT Yaxley Parish Council (Mr Philip Freeman)

Summary:

Formal policies for infrastructure are essential to ensure that houses are built alongside schools, good healthcare provision, road/transport upgrades and leisure facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 6745

Representation ID: 6584

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

INF2 for the reasons outlined below. The Suffolk County Council must sign off any strategic infrastructure policy.

More details about Rep ID: 6584

Representation ID: 6470

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

We consider INF2 to be most appropriate to today's needs. People want an orderly provision of infrastructure, co-ordinated with settlement growth. When moving into new housing areas people will accept some delay provided there is certainty over what will arrive. They don't want to see roads frequently dug up - service providers need to co-ordinate.

More details about Rep ID: 6470

Representation ID: 6460

SUPPORT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

INF2

More details about Rep ID: 6460

Representation ID: 6301

SUPPORT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

Support INF2 as this is likely to result in a more suitable provision of education. Provision of post 16 education within Mid Suffolk should be actively considered as the current provision is under threat from institutions in other LA areas.

More details about Rep ID: 6301

Representation ID: 6141

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

INF 2 plus

More details about Rep ID: 6141

Representation ID: 6027

SUPPORT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

While the NPPF provides only base-line provision, INF2 would allow policy to be shaped to take account of local needs across Babergh.

More details about Rep ID: 6027

Representation ID: 5939

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Prefer INF2. Provides better alignment with local situation and allows more opportunity for consultation.

More details about Rep ID: 5939

Representation ID: 5896

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

INF2 Plans need to be in place before development, and need to reflect the needs of the existing community and any considered development of this.

More details about Rep ID: 5896

Representation ID: 5790

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

INF2, because infrastructure provision fails to keep pace with housing development and CIL is no guarantee that infrastructure will be provided or expanded in the place where the need arises and where the CIL funds arise.

More details about Rep ID: 5790

Representation ID: 5690

COMMENT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

INF 2 because an infrastructure policy must be tailored to rach locality rather than being generally applied to all locations.

More details about Rep ID: 5690

Representation ID: 5647

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

INF2

More details about Rep ID: 5647

Representation ID: 5323

COMMENT Mrs Ann Hurst

Summary:

INF2 the infrastructure timing is critical to the development both during and post, and the impact that each development site has on another

More details about Rep ID: 5323

Representation ID: 5148

COMMENT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

Option 2 - local knowledge and accountability

More details about Rep ID: 5148

Representation ID: 5067

SUPPORT Mr Iain Maxwell

Summary:

INF2 should take account of local issues and challenges which can only be addressed at local level. NPPF is more high level and strategic and by definition cannot deal with local circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 5067

Representation ID: 5066

COMMENT Suffolk Housing Society represented by Ingleton Wood LLP (Miss Nicol Perryman)

Summary:

Suffolk Housing Society consider Option INF2 to be most appropriate. We support the inclusion of a strategic infrastructure policy in order to manage infrastructure provision.

We consider this is particularly important in the context of the anticipated level of cumulative development expected across the Districts in the Plan period in response to shortfalls in the delivery of housing across in recent years.

More details about Rep ID: 5066

Representation ID: 5031

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

We would support INF 2due to the limitations of the NPPF approach.

More details about Rep ID: 5031

Representation ID: 4971

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

We prefer option INF 2.

More details about Rep ID: 4971

Representation ID: 4808

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

INF2 for the reasons outlined below. The Suffolk County Council must sign off any strategic infrastructure policy. We see little evidence of holistic planning at the present time.

More details about Rep ID: 4808

Representation ID: 4735

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

IN2, plus.

More details about Rep ID: 4735

Representation ID: 4717

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

We prefer INF 2. Reason for preference is the traffic impact of development on rural communities.

More details about Rep ID: 4717

Representation ID: 4657

COMMENT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

INF2 - support - local steer and guidance on NPPF policy needed

More details about Rep ID: 4657

Representation ID: 4543

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

Option INF2 is the best and more proactive approach to manage the infrastructure provision rather than the current reactive approach. Infrastructure needs to come before development.

More details about Rep ID: 4543

Representation ID: 4522

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

INF2

More details about Rep ID: 4522

Representation ID: 4246

COMMENT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

Option INF2 as the cumulative impact of growth and development on available infrastructure must be recognised. Collecting money through CIL and S106 agreements will not necessarily guarantee additional GPs can be recruited.

More details about Rep ID: 4246

Representation ID: 4117

SUPPORT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Fully support INF 2 for the reasons stated in the document but with the condition that all formally agreed infrastructure agreements are adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 4117

Representation ID: 4038

COMMENT Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt

Summary:

INF2 must be adopted. It is vital that all elements of the necessary infrastructure are in place before new development is approved

More details about Rep ID: 4038

Representation ID: 3713

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

INF2. Development MUST have all infrastructure needs identified in place BEFORE permission is granted. Ipswich infill with no infrastructure delivered/planned, greatly contributes to increased gridlock, thus pollution, erosion of local economy, etc. Woods Lane debacle, Melton shows Suffolk Coastal can't plan delivery. Babergh must deliver. Infrastructure should be absolute minimum needed for development to function.

Planning permission should only be granted following legally binding agreement that identified infrastructure WILL BE delivered. Guarantees should be structured so can't be cancelled/avoided.

Schemes must consider existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments locally. Policy MUST apply to all necessary infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 3713

Representation ID: 3533

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

The Parish Council considered the option INF2 to be preferable however it had some cautionary comments. Infrastructure is essential to any community growth and for some communities the infrastructure is more fragile than for others. On p66 there is a clear expectation that new development will be restricted or even prevented where the essential infrastructure cannot be delivered.It is also a concern that the development of infrastructure lags behind housing development.The Parish Council fully supports the concept of creating separate plans for education and health drawn up in conjunction with the LEA and NHS England to ensure a consistent approach.

More details about Rep ID: 3533

Representation ID: 3501

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Would fully support INF 2 for the reasons stated in the document but with the condition that all formally agreed infrastructure agreements are adhered to.

More details about Rep ID: 3501

Representation ID: 3349

COMMENT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Faster broadband - currently Lindsey has speed below 1Mb/sec.

More details about Rep ID: 3349

Representation ID: 3306

SUPPORT Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs)

Summary:

A strategic infrastructure policy is a matter of both importance and urgency and should encompass much more than merely the provision of new schools to manage the impact of cumulative growth. It should cover telecommunications, water supply, waste disposal, renewable energy, the active protection of the natural environment, as well as new roads, medical facilities and schools.

More details about Rep ID: 3306

Representation ID: 3050

COMMENT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

OPTION INF2 is best option.

More details about Rep ID: 3050

Representation ID: 3020

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

INF2

More details about Rep ID: 3020

Representation ID: 2965

COMMENT Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson)

Summary:

The DDNPSG is very aware that many of the issues it aspires to address result from inadequacies in local infrastructure and service provision. It has a very strong preference for Option INF2; planned and appropriate to local needs.

More details about Rep ID: 2965

Representation ID: 2736

COMMENT Wetherden Parish COuncil (Mrs Sonia Jewers)

Summary:

We consider option 2 the most appropriate. Infrastructure should be considered in conjunction with and as part of an integrated planning policy which can only be thoroughly considered locally. Infrastructure cannot be considered as a separate issue once development has been agreed. It must be ensured that services and infrastructure is sufficient for all the proposed developments in the locality. However, there is no option to consider the backlog of infrastructure required for developments already proposed so that it is brought up to date.

More details about Rep ID: 2736

Representation ID: 2672

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council supports policy option INF1.

More details about Rep ID: 2672

Representation ID: 2514

COMMENT Mr Richard Mayes

Summary:

INF2 - It is of utmost importance to have a strategic plan to take account of local needs, rather than a simple general plan.

More details about Rep ID: 2514

Representation ID: 2443

OBJECT Anglian Water (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

Anglian Water is supportive of the inclusion of a strategic infrastructure policy as it would help to assist the determination of planning applications in the plan area. It is important that new development is aligned with water and water recycling infrastructure and that the Joint Plan ensures that evidence is provided at the planning application stage to demonstrate that capacity is available or can me available in time to serve the development

More details about Rep ID: 2443

Representation ID: 2433

COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

INF2 is the preferred option as this goes beyond what the NPPF provides, and would make the policy more robust.

More details about Rep ID: 2433

Representation ID: 2309

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

We support option INF2 because it is essential to take account of the cumulative impacts of planning decisions. INF1 does not do this.

More details about Rep ID: 2309

Representation ID: 2258

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

INF2

More details about Rep ID: 2258

Representation ID: 2202

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

There is a danger that infrastructure improvements only follow on from and are a result of development and that is encouraging larger development in a very few specific areas and hoping than tweaking the infrastructure will accommodate the increased demand. The pooling of funds will annoy communities that will have suffered development but with only limited improvement to infrastructure in their immediate areas. Who will benefit most from the proposed to rail and roads those who live here or those who are passing through.

More details about Rep ID: 2202

Representation ID: 2110

COMMENT Mr & Mrs M Baker represented by Boyer Planning (Paige Harris)

Summary:

In relation to infrastructure we support option INF2 as that would allow a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision to support economic growth and residential development. It is positive that infrastructure must aim to try and align with the needs of these, which should help to ensure strong and sustainable Districts into the future.

More details about Rep ID: 2110

Representation ID: 1959

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Very firmly Option INF2; planned and appropriate to local needs.

More details about Rep ID: 1959

Representation ID: 1862

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Support INF2. The local needs of the community must be addressed for each individual project. Although the NPFF provides a good string base to work from there will always be local needs and oddities that need addressing.

More details about Rep ID: 1862

Representation ID: 1786

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Support INF2. The local needs of the community must be addressed for each individual project. Although the NPFF provides a good string base to work from there will always be local needs and oddities that need addressing.

More details about Rep ID: 1786

Representation ID: 1680

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council strongly supports option INF2 and encourages MSDC to develop its own policy.

More details about Rep ID: 1680

Representation ID: 1599

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

INF2. NPPF alone is insufficient

More details about Rep ID: 1599

Representation ID: 1302

COMMENT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

It would seem appropriate to adopt option INF2 to ensure adequate education and health facilities for new residential development.

More details about Rep ID: 1302

Representation ID: 1281

SUPPORT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Option INF 2

More details about Rep ID: 1281

Representation ID: 1171

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

INF2 as provides local flexibility

More details about Rep ID: 1171

Representation ID: 1056

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

INF 2 more local

More details about Rep ID: 1056

Representation ID: 681

COMMENT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC considers that a policy relating requirements closer to local requirements is preferable.

More details about Rep ID: 681

Representation ID: 321

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Support option INF2, We need to identify our infrastructure needs at a Suffolk level and work with other Districts and CC to deliver.

More details about Rep ID: 321

Representation ID: 235

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Option INF2 as it allows local input

More details about Rep ID: 235

Representation ID: 136

OBJECT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

INF 1 would seem to cover the issues identified as additional in INF 2. I am unclear as to why INF 2 would be necessary.

More details about Rep ID: 136

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

Powered by OpusConsult