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) - Q67

Representation ID: 13200

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

Summary:

With regards to Option INF 2, we believe that the infrastructure requirements given in the NPPF are sufficient and that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision is not required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 13200

Representation ID: 13029

COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

The strategic priorities for infrastructure should be prepared in partnership with Ipswich Borough and Suffolk Coastal District Councils, as strategic infrastructure will have a wider geographical context. Transport infrastructure needs to include reference to rail in respect of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line for freight traffic and also passenger traffic that uses the line. It is also important to ensure that new developments in Mid Suffolk District in particular are well-served by rail to Ipswich. Accessibility to rail stations is also important. Interconnectedness with bus services is equally important. New commercial development should have robust green travel plans.

More details about Rep ID: 13029

Representation ID: 12988

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

It is our observation that the Planning Department of BDC has found it hard to enforce the policies relating to infrastructure provision it has.

Planning permission should only be granted if there is some form of guarantee that the infrastructure services WILL BE delivered or the necessary funds are ring-fenced to ensure the cumulative infrastructure needs arising from existing and new developments will be completed in good time.

More details about Rep ID: 12988

Representation ID: 12890

OBJECT Mr David Card

Summary:

In many places the current infrastructure is inadequate and there is an urgent need to join up the processes by which Planning Approvals and Infrastructures are better aligned

More details about Rep ID: 12890

Representation ID: 12519

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

Summary:

With regards to Option INF 2, we believe that the infrastructure requirements given in the NPPF are sufficient and that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision is not required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 12519

Representation ID: 12428

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

It is essential that any infrastructure plan is developed in co-ordination with the parish council in partnership with the district council and we expect CIL payments to be given to the parish to support the development and enhancement of the infrastructure to maintain the nature of Old Newton and enhance it for the residents.

More details about Rep ID: 12428

Representation ID: 12362

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

Summary:

With regards to Option INF 2, we believe that the infrastructure requirements given in the NPPF are sufficient and that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision is not required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 12362

Representation ID: 11725

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

I regard the policy as well intentioned but Chilton Parish Council have already experienced a complete disregard for this requirement with regard to the resolution to grant the recent outline application for Chilton Woods.

More details about Rep ID: 11725

Representation ID: 11077

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that a county-wide strategic approach to infrastructure delivery should be adopted.

More details about Rep ID: 11077

Representation ID: 11015

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

Summary:

It is our observation that the Planning Department of BDC has found it hard to enforce the policies relating to infrastructure provision it has. Changing policies to ones that include subjective criteria will only legitimise departures from best policy and give developers hungry to maximise profits every argument they need to oppose policies and develop what they want to rather than what is needed and meets the relevant policies.

More details about Rep ID: 11015

Representation ID: 10950

COMMENT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* Fully support that each scheme considers both existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in locality.

More details about Rep ID: 10950

Representation ID: 10837

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

CF2 agree.
Fine if it is delivered in the right timeframe. History suggests that a crisis point needs to be reached before significant change happens.

More details about Rep ID: 10837

Representation ID: 10820

OBJECT Orwell Ahead (Mr Mark Ling) and 2 others

Summary:

With a re-think of district boundaries, the area could deliver ambitious economic growth along with a significant increase in housing numbers, but with the ability to do this in a truly sustainable and comprehensive way, able to plan and deliver the infrastructure improvements that are required to facilitate this growth.

More details about Rep ID: 10820

Representation ID: 10747

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* We fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.
* 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.

More details about Rep ID: 10747

Representation ID: 10377

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

With regards to Option INF 2, we believe that the infrastructure requirements given in the NPPF are sufficient and that a strategic infrastructure policy to manage infrastructure provision is not required to supplement the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 10377

Representation ID: 9761

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Currently, the amenities and infrastructure are inadequate given the recent developments within Debenham core village. Therefore, this needs to be addressed prior to any further housing development.

More details about Rep ID: 9761

Representation ID: 9602

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

I fully support and indeed consider it essential, that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.
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.

More details about Rep ID: 9602

Representation ID: 9575

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Inadequate as it is being paper based rather than with local experience and relies on developer provision after the fact! Not an option when everything is already overcrowded.

More details about Rep ID: 9575

Representation ID: 9471

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

The parish council is keen to be involved in the development of an Infrastructure Plan by the District Council for our local area. We expect some portion of the CIL on developments within our functional cluster that depend on facilities in the core villages, be made available to improve facilities in the core villages e.g. schools, health centres, sports and leisure facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 9471

Representation ID: 9080

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

All new development should be supported by, and have good access to, all necessary infrastructure. Planning Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed development.
There needs to be the proviso that the infrastructure will be in place before the community development. i.e. not after development.

More details about Rep ID: 9080

Representation ID: 8945

COMMENT Simon Bell

Summary:

Insufficient consideration has been given to the requirements for improved infrastructure in the North of the District, especially around road and rail links. Consideration should be given to dualling the A140 bypassing key villages around which housing and employment sites could then be identified.

More details about Rep ID: 8945

Representation ID: 8903

COMMENT Mr Simon Pearce

Summary:

Any infrastructure requirements should be in place before development. We see a lag and even lack of infrastructure when developments go ahead. For example, Admiral's Quarter in Holbrook has gone ahead relying on the proposals to change Freston crossroads laid out in the Ganges development agreement. However, the Ganges development is not proceeding at any pace; so there has been no change at the crossroads.

More details about Rep ID: 8903

Representation ID: 8856

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Let's not put all eggs in the road network basket, but consider the options for distributed work and close-by living - focus on education, broadband, new employment opportunities that can be done anywhere via the internet

More details about Rep ID: 8856

Representation ID: 8713

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Planning permission should only be granted if there is some form of guarantee that the infrastructure services will be delivered or the necessary funds are ring-fenced to ensure the cumulative infrastructure needs arising from existing and new developments will be completed in good time.
My observation is that both councils have not been robust enough to ensure sufficient funds are always forthcoming

More details about Rep ID: 8713

Representation ID: 8606

OBJECT Dr Ian Russell

Summary:

Sudbury road planning data. We believe the counts for the Suffolk Traffic Model used for the WRR Business Case were manual.N

o detailed data about traffic flows in and out of Sudbury is available: type of vehicle; entry point, date-time; exit point date-time.

This can be compiled over a 7 day period using number plate recognition cameras in a cordon round the town and analysed for about £15,000.

This would inform the case for considering options to the Sudbury WRR. A relatively modes amount to ensure analysis is soundly based.

More details about Rep ID: 8606

Representation ID: 8568

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Infrastructure requirements must be identified and determined before a site is allocated in the Local Plan and subsequently planning permission should only be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place that delivers infrastructure/services of the agreed type at the appropriate time.

More details about Rep ID: 8568

Representation ID: 8422

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council agrees with the views expressed on page 67 in the section headed Managing Infrastructure Provision.
The Council notes that some infrastructure projects take many years to deliver and strongly recommends that supporting infrastructure be provided in step with the demand arising from each development and not be added as an afterthought at the end of the project.

More details about Rep ID: 8422

Representation ID: 8354

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

Summary:

67 I am fully supportive of the intent of the proposals, particularly the consideration of all the infrastructure implications of a scheme including existing commitments and cumulative impacts where the proposal forms one of a number of growth projects in the locality. Until such strategic policies can be implemented we continue to have concerns on approval of individual proposals without due consideration of cumulative impacts.
Some impacts are glossed over by such functions as Highways who give blanket "no problem here" responses to a group of applications, with little local knowledge or specific visit to sites.

More details about Rep ID: 8354

Representation ID: 8237

COMMENT Mr David Watts

Summary:

It seems to weak. Infrastructure is even more important than new housing and is woefully in need of improvement already. More housing without more and improved roads and junctions, more parking and more GPs is simply unaccptable. GIVE PRIORITY TO INFRASTRUCTURE

More details about Rep ID: 8237

Representation ID: 8065

OBJECT Dr Ian Russell

Summary:

Comment: Development of a Sudbury Area Roads Plan must be an urgent priority because people need to know what the transport infrastructure will be - see attachment.

Objection: Construction of the proposed Sudbury Western Relief Road would obstruct the delivery of the strategic road infrastructure the area really needs - see attachment

More details about Rep ID: 8065

Representation ID: 7694

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

We regard the policy as well intentioned but we have already experienced a complete disregard for this requirement with regard to the resolution to grant the recent outline application for Chilton Woods.

More details about Rep ID: 7694

Representation ID: 7626

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

In agreement with the policy in principle but it will be essential that in respect of developments where infrastructure is not yet delivered, there is an irrevocable undertaking in place as to the delivery of the relevant infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 7626

Representation ID: 7560

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

In agreement with the policy in principle but it will be essential that in respect of developments where infrastructure is not yet delivered, there is an irrevocable undertaking in place as to the delivery of the relevant infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 7560

Representation ID: 7517

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

When planning permission is given the infrastructure is delivered.

More details about Rep ID: 7517

Representation ID: 7401

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council believes the strategic approach should be infrastructure first, then development.

More details about Rep ID: 7401

Representation ID: 7279

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

Suitable infrastructure needs to be in place *before* development occurs. Otherwise chaos ensues.

More details about Rep ID: 7279

Representation ID: 7174

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Prior to significant growth there needs to be an Infrastructure Development Plan and the appropriate infrastructure needs to be in place first of all

More details about Rep ID: 7174

Representation ID: 7078

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Infrastructure needs should be assessed and planned for before future developments are passed by planning

More details about Rep ID: 7078

Representation ID: 6964

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

As in neighbouring Essex, no development should take place until the infrastructure to support it is in place.

More details about Rep ID: 6964

Representation ID: 6757

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Any infrastructure requirements should be in place before development. We see a lag and even lack of infrastructure when developments go ahead. For example, Admiral's Quarter in Holbrook has gone ahead relying on the proposals to change Freston crossroads laid out in the Ganges development agreement. However, the Ganges development is not proceeding at any pace; so there has been no change at the crossroads.

More details about Rep ID: 6757

Representation ID: 6437

COMMENT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Infrastructure requirement what would that be and at what realist cost. It must be identified nad determined before site is allocated in plan and planning permission only to be grated if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place that delivers infrastructure/services of the agreed type at the appropriate time.

More details about Rep ID: 6437

Representation ID: 6154

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

An infrastructure delivery plan addressing not only need but delivery and enforcement is necessary. Providers and utility providers to include the District and County Councils need to be held to account. A 'can do' mentality needs to be instilled in these institutions and financial penalties imposed..
The Managing Infrastructure Provision draft policy is too weak. As this is central to sequential development, the policy needs to be strengthened by, in the first instance the omission of words such as 'likely' and 'may'.

More details about Rep ID: 6154

Representation ID: 6076

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

We believ that in future, Babergh should endeavour to ensure that developers provide adequate infrastructure / infrastructure enhancements IN ADVANCE of future developments as the current practice where this tends to follow many years later is woefully inadequate.

More details about Rep ID: 6076

Representation ID: 6063

COMMENT KBB (Keep Bildeston Beautiful) (John Beales)

Summary:

INF2 is a start but approving housing development on any scale requires that proper consideration and provision is first given to the surrounding infrastructure, particularly roads.

More details about Rep ID: 6063

Representation ID: 5946

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Any development must enhance infrastructure provision. Additional transport demands should be considered. For instance, if large new developments involve commuting consideration should be given to potential bottle necks and overcrowding for extent of journey.

More details about Rep ID: 5946

Representation ID: 5904

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

All new development should be supported by, and have good access to, all necessary infrastructure. Planning Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed development.
There needs to be the proviso that the infrastructure will be in place before the community development. i.e. not after development.

More details about Rep ID: 5904

Representation ID: 5794

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

It needs to be given teeth by including the CIL provision set out in Question 65.

More details about Rep ID: 5794

Representation ID: 5653

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

INF2

More details about Rep ID: 5653

Representation ID: 5550

OBJECT Frederick Cooke

Summary:

All new development should be supported by etc. Should needs changing to MUST.

Currently Highway problems are totally overlooked and no explanation given. Example 1000 new house and no road improvements! Who has the final say Highways or Planners?

More details about Rep ID: 5550

Representation ID: 5164

COMMENT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

Who pays for them all is key. Areas of MSDC are flat and surface water drainage is an issue.

More details about Rep ID: 5164

Representation ID: 5073

COMMENT Mr Iain Maxwell

Summary:

There is no mention of how CIL moneys will be prioritised and distributed. How will this be done? Who will make the decision that, for example, additional school places are a higher priority than other infrastructure?

More details about Rep ID: 5073

Representation ID: 5034

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

The approach and the policy will have to be translated into practice, by means of some enforcement of planning decisions.

More details about Rep ID: 5034

Representation ID: 4979

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

A piecemeal approach to infrastructure development is not sustainable. It would be inadequate and uneconomic. A clear strategic plan is required for each town and core village. Developers contributions or public funds must be made available to meet costs.

More details about Rep ID: 4979

Representation ID: 4924

COMMENT Mr Jeff Cribb

Summary:

A robust stance needs to be taken with developers and the requirement for them to improve infrastructure. There are significant strains being placed on schools, roads, utilities and health provisions. These do not appear to be adequately enhanced at the current time. Any developments should improve a community, not adversely affect the quality of life of its residents

More details about Rep ID: 4924

Representation ID: 4817

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Any infrastructure requirements should be in place before development. We see a lag and even lack of infrastructure when developments go ahead. For example, Admiral's Quarter in Holbrook has gone ahead relying on the proposals to change Freston crossroads laid out in the Ganges development agreement. However, the Ganges development is not proceeding at any pace; so there has been no change at the crossroads.

More details about Rep ID: 4817

Representation ID: 4766

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

We agree with the initial preference approach.

More details about Rep ID: 4766

Representation ID: 4750

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

An infrastructure delivery plan addressing not only need but delivery and enforcement is necessary. Providers and utility providers, to include the District and County Councils need to be held to account. A 'can do' mentality needs to be instilled in these institutions and financial penalties imposed..
The Managing Infrastructure Provision draft policy is too weak. As this is central to sequential development, the policy needs to be strengthened by, in the first instance the omission of words such as 'likely' and 'may'.

More details about Rep ID: 4750

Representation ID: 4705

SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

support

More details about Rep ID: 4705

Representation ID: 4123

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

The first paragraph under Managing Infrastructure Provision heading reads "Planning Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed development."

Therefore, planning permission should only be granted if there is some form of guarantee that the infrastructure services WILL BE delivered or the necessary funds are ring-fenced to ensure the cumulative infrastructure needs arising from existing and new developments will be completed in good time. Where possible develop the infrastructure then build.

More details about Rep ID: 4123

Representation ID: 3718

COMMENT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Support strategic approach as long as it incorporates all the content of my answers to the other questions in this Section.

More details about Rep ID: 3718

Representation ID: 3538

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

The draft policy on page 67 is very light on detail and talks in general terms. It is suggested by the Parish Council that infrastructure is such an important element of a Local Plan that a separate consultation is undertaken on this subject alone to create a detailed version of this document that can sit alongside the Local Plan. It is also important to recognise the role the developers hold in delivering new developments in a timely manner. The Parish Council would expect more defined checks and balances over progress of developments to be in place to avoid unnecessary delays.

More details about Rep ID: 3538

Representation ID: 3507

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

The first paragraph under Managing Infrastructure Provision heading reads "Planning Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed development."


COMMENTARY
Planning permission should only be granted if there is some form of guarantee that the infrastructure services WILL BE delivered or the necessary funds are ring-fenced to ensure the cumulative infrastructure needs arising from existing and new developments will be completed in good time.

More details about Rep ID: 3507

Representation ID: 3312

COMMENT Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs)

Summary:

At this stage the plan does not make clear how a strategic approach to infrastructure delivery will occur. The seeming thrust of the policies on spatial distribution and rural growth, encouraging widely scattered small scale developments, means that it is easy for MSDC to duck the issues of inadequate infrastructure. Small developments also contribute very little under the community infrastructure payments system to ameliorate the impact of the development on local infrastructure.
More clarity is needed on how the strategic plan will accommodate windfall developments, which constitute a significant proportion of rural development sites.

More details about Rep ID: 3312

Representation ID: 2981

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

Summary:

The DDNP sees no alternative but for the necessary infrastructure to be planned and delivered in a way that satisfies the needs across the County and enables planned growth in all parts of the District. Further, in its particular cross-boundary situation, it has to anticipate collaboration between adjoining authorities, which is not a novel concept as Norfolk and Suffolk have done so previously.

More details about Rep ID: 2981

Representation ID: 2676

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council supports the policy text (three paragraphs) "Managing Infrastructure Provision" on page 67.

More details about Rep ID: 2676

Representation ID: 2445

OBJECT Anglian Water (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

We are supportive of the draft policy for managing infrastructure provision but would ask that a further policy relating to water resouces, flood risk and drainage includes the following wording or similar:

'Development proposals should demonstrate:

* that water is available to support the development proposed or can be provided in time to serve the development;
* that adequate foul water treatment and disposal already exists or can be provided in time to serve the development;
* that no surface water connections are made to the foul system;
* that surface water connections are made to the public sewerage network are only made in exceptional circumstances where it can be shown where there are no feasible alternatives;
* that no combined sewer overflows are created in areas served by combined sewers, and
* that foul and surface water flows are separated;
* that suitable access is safeguarded for the maintenance of water resources and drainage infrastructure
* that adequate provision is made to safeguard the future maintenance of water bodies to which surface water is discharged

More details about Rep ID: 2445

Representation ID: 2313

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

As it is clearly not possible to improve infrastructure everywhere at once, the focus should be on a few key areas where the benefits will be greatest. These targeted areas should be where the main focus of housing development is.

More details about Rep ID: 2313

Representation ID: 2262

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Infrastructure should come first, not last! Tell the developers to get it the right way round.

More details about Rep ID: 2262

Representation ID: 1964

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

There is no alternative but for the necessary infrastructure to be planned and delivered in a way that satisfies the needs across the County and enables planned growth in all parts of the District.

More details about Rep ID: 1964

Representation ID: 1866

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

No comments.

More details about Rep ID: 1866

Representation ID: 1604

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Too little too late but INF2 will help

More details about Rep ID: 1604

Representation ID: 1285

SUPPORT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

We support INF 2 (see Q63)

More details about Rep ID: 1285

Representation ID: 1065

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Infrastructure first and houses second

More details about Rep ID: 1065

Representation ID: 836

SUPPORT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)

Summary:

A sensible approach.

More details about Rep ID: 836

Representation ID: 325

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

You need a vision and delivery method, that is sadly lacking at moment.

More details about Rep ID: 325

Representation ID: 140

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

It seems reasonable to expect developers to contribute to the infrastructure required by the developments they are creating.

More details about Rep ID: 140

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

Powered by OpusConsult