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) - Potential Land for Development

Representation ID: 13128

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

It will be essential for BMSDC and Suffolk Coastal to engage in positive discussions on settlements which are located close to the administrative boundary. For example a large development in one community may have an indirect impact on a community within another administration. Particularly important when considering infrastructure requirements such as education provision.

More details about Rep ID: 13128

Representation ID: 13089

COMMENT Suffolk County Council (Mr. Robert Feakes)

Summary:

The Council archaeological service recommend reference to archaeology in site specific policies to highlight the need for the information base to enable the District councils to make informed decisions. As sites are allocated, the archaeological service would appreciate the opportunity to advise further on cumulative impact and appropriate assessment. This is particularly relevant to the discussion on the focus of development around the A14 or A12 corridors.
Waste facilities are safeguarded in the Waste Core Strategy. Development should not prevent or prejudice use of waste facilities. The Minerals Core Strategy safeguards areas of mineral resources and allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 13089

Representation ID: 12776

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc, the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton. This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 12776

Representation ID: 12695

COMMENT Environment Agency (Miss Charlie Christensen)

Summary:

A few of the sites being considered for development currently have some wastewater capacity constraints whereby existing infrastructure is currently at capacity or there is little headroom left in the current WRC permit
It is important that the District Council consult the sewerage undertaker (Anglian Water) as you will need confirmation that existing infrastructure at the proposed sites have the capacity for additional flows from new development, and whether the local foul sewers have sufficient hydraulic capacity. Undertaking a Water Cycle Study (WCS) may be useful in assessing this.

More details about Rep ID: 12695

Representation ID: 12460

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

Summary:

The Councils should view sites which are owned entirely by developers favourably, as this will ensure the deliverability of such sites (see the accompanying 'Vision Document' which demonstrates how these sites at Debenham could be brought forward).

More details about Rep ID: 12460

Representation ID: 12305

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

Summary:

We consider that, in determining the allocation of sites, the Council should view sites which are owned entirely by developers favourably, as this will ensure the deliverability of such sites.

More details about Rep ID: 12305

Representation ID: 12276

OBJECT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)

Summary:

 there is no summary table which would allow any judgement to be made on whether sufficient sites have been identified to accommodate 4,210/6,048/7,980 new homes
 the identification of sites has had no regard to the 'spatial distribution' including the settlement hierarchy - some small settlements seem to have extensive 'potential sites', some Core Villages have a very small number.

More details about Rep ID: 12276

Representation ID: 12117

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

The site selection process for the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Local Plan must result in the allocation
of land to meet development needs in full and support the delivery of the vision and objectives of
the Plan. This approach should include allocations across the settlement hierarchy in a manner that
will contribute successfully to enabling a robust rolling 5-year housing land supply and allow a
wider range of housebuilders (including those that are small and medium sized) the opportunity to
deliver sites across Suffolk thereby increasing the range of products available and speeding up
delivery in the county. It will also ensure a Plan that positively responds to the imperative to plan
for thriving rural communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12117

Representation ID: 12066

OBJECT Heathpatch Limited represented by Wincer Kievenaar Architects Limited, (Mr Craig Western)

Summary:

The CD does not allocate such sites but the SHELAA has assessed submitted sites
and made conclusions on suitability. The 'potential sites' are mapped at length but:
* there is no summary table which would allow any judgement to be made on
whether sufficient sites have been identified to deliver sufficient homes for the
plan period.
* the identification of sites has had no regard to the 'spatial distribution' including
the settlement hierarchy - some small settlements seem to have extensive
'potential sites', some Core Villages have a very small number.

More details about Rep ID: 12066

Representation ID: 12027

OBJECT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

The two authorities refer on p.20 of the JLPCD that the Strategic Housing and
Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) indicates that there is sufficient
supply of land to meet the OAN. Given that the SHELAA identifies that the 'Total
Theoretical Capacity' for Babergh as being 9,558 dwellings and for Mid Suffolk only 10,344 dwellings, this will need to be re-evaluated. Particularly as p.34 of the
consultation document refers to there being a need for 572 nursing and residential
care home spaces in Babergh and 1,004 spaces in Mid Suffolk, which is stated as
being in addition to the OAN figure.

More details about Rep ID: 12027

Representation ID: 11892

OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

* The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310 (total obtained by adding up the number of house per site as per the 'Sites Submitted' document. This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes - this is more simplisitic as the JLP states but some tweaking could be done where appropriate. This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising one parish in particular to the extent that it would be abosrobed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford.

More details about Rep ID: 11892

Representation ID: 11627

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

The two authorities refer on p.20 of the JLPCD that the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) indicates that there is sufficient supply of land to meet the OAN. Given that the SHELAA identifies that the 'Total Theoretical Capacity' for Babergh as being 9,558 dwellings and for Mid Suffolk only 10,344 dwellings, this will need to be re-evaluated. Particularly as p.34 of the consultation document refers to there being a need for 572 nursing and residential care home spaces in Babergh and 1,004 spaces in Mid Suffolk, which is stated as being in addition to the OAN figure.

More details about Rep ID: 11627

Representation ID: 11588

COMMENT Heathpatch Limited represented by Wincer Kievenaar Architects Limited, (Mr Craig Western)

Summary:

The CD does not allocate sites but the SHELAA has assessed submitted sites and
made conclusions on suitability. The 'potential sites' are mapped at length but:
* there is no summary table which would allow any judgement to be made on
whether sufficient sites have been identified to deliver sufficient homes for the
plan period.
* the identification of sites has had no regard to the 'spatial distribution' including
the settlement hierarchy - some small settlements seem to have extensive
'potential sites', some Core Villages have a very small number.

More details about Rep ID: 11588

Representation ID: 11573

OBJECT Annette Powell

Summary:

Disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it.
A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes - allow settlements to grow organically without penalising Sproughton and merging it with Ipswich/Bramford.
Significant over development. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach

More details about Rep ID: 11573

Representation ID: 11517

OBJECT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )

Summary:

The HS09J Shawlands Avenue site allocation was located within the area of land which GCPC is seeking to remove from the SS0242 identified site and in relation to this recommendation only, GCPC supports the Cornard Tye Residents Association response to the JLP consultation and specifically the statutory provisions which NPPF requires the local planning authority to 'reflect' and 'promote' are, amongst others: Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act and paragraph 132 & 134 of the NPPF. (See Appendix B)

More details about Rep ID: 11517

Representation ID: 11383

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* The JLP proposes sites across the district which have come forward for development and which they provisionally assess as being technically acceptable. There is significantly more proposed than is needed for the 20 year supply so clearly some will be eliminated based on the strength of arguments and opinion both on validity and quantity. Which ones and where?
* The consultation effectively offers an adversarial process to support or object to sites in different locations so the number of responses from Sproughton will affect the outcome.
* With respect to Sproughton, 8 sites have been identified in total (6 for housing and 2 for employment). These essentially cover most of the Chantry Vale (Wolsey Grange to the River Gipping), the old Sugar Beet site, and developments along the Loraine Way meeting up with Bramford.

More details about Rep ID: 11383

Representation ID: 11338

COMMENT Eleanor & Guy Barker & Mrs V Aitken represented by Savills (Mr William Lusty)

Summary:

Representation highlights the availability of Land North of the B1456, Chelmondiston for development. Access proposed to development of the site would be taken from the B1456.

Around 100 dwellings could be brought forward. However, should the Council consider only partial development would be acceptable, then the site could be made available on a partial basis.

Site lies immediately to the west of Chelmondiston, which is a Core Village. Well landscaped scheme would be used to mitigate any impacts upon the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB.

More details about Rep ID: 11338

Representation ID: 11252

COMMENT Suffolk Wildlife Trust (Mr James Meyer)

Summary:

We object to any allocations which are likely to result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Any site allocations need to be informed by up to date evidence of the ecological value of the sites.

More details about Rep ID: 11252

Representation ID: 11181

COMMENT Education and Skills Funding Agency (Mr Douglas McNab)

Summary:

Site allocations and/or safeguarding policies should clarify requirements for new school delivery, including when; minimum site area; any preferred site characteristics; requirements for safeguarding land for future expansion. Refer to draft policy CC7 in Milton Keynes plan. Site allocation policies should be clear that developments will be required to contribute to land and construction costs for new schools or expansions, to meet need generated by development. Retaining a degree of flexibility is necessary as need for school places can vary over time. ESFA wish to be included in site allocation discussions - there could be school projects designated.

More details about Rep ID: 11181

Representation ID: 11124

COMMENT Peter Warren

Summary:

It would appear from the net OAN that Sproughton is providing c. 55% of the overall requirement. This is disproportionate and demonstrates a lack of thought, planning and an over-eager embrace of an easy solution.

More details about Rep ID: 11124

Representation ID: 10947

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

Summary:

Land shown as potentially available for development comprises 83% greenfield and 78.87% farmland. The submission of greenfield sites is frequently cost driven. The JLP makes no attempt at presenting suitable means of encouraging brownfield development.

Under the JLP premise a small number of villages would bear almost the entire impact of housing development, to the point where their character would be altered completely. Most small communities, including those currently classified as countryside and which might benefit from proportionate expansion, have no potential allocation at all. It is quite possible that no sites have been offered in some areas because under existing policy they would have to meet 'exceptional' criteria.

More details about Rep ID: 10947

Representation ID: 10934

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

Summary:

As it stands, the JLP would be dependent on the development of greenfield sites. As discussed in 2.2 below, a call for sites has resulted in virtually all potential sites comprising agricultural land, much of it of good quality. To accept this as the basis for the JLP would be to accede to the least satisfactory scenario from the outset.

The JLP contains no information as to proposed selection criteria for potential sites. The request for sites and areas is inappropriate in a document that invites communities to help develop policies for the evaluation and identification of sites.

More details about Rep ID: 10934

Representation ID: 10664

OBJECT Aldham Parish Council (Mr Jonathan Ralph)

Summary:

It has not been made clear how housing sites are determined in regard to number and density. The nature of Aldham as a hamlet/countryside parish already seems to mitigate against any significant development anywhere. We believe this presumption against should include any "ribbon development" which would result in new rows of continuous/adjacent building on what is currently open field frontage.

It would seem to be obvious that most inhabitants of Hinterland villages and Hamlets and Countryside locations will have to travel to work. This places further pressure on roads and in addition to the other services required and this should therefore create clear restrictions on any new development if it is to be "sustainable".

More details about Rep ID: 10664

Representation ID: 10539

OBJECT Alison Barratt

Summary:

Sproughton village currently has around 581 dwellings, and would appear to have had 2300+ houses (55% of OAN) allocated to it. This is an increase in the region of 397%! This is clearly what would be far too many houses crammed into what is really only a relatively small area. This is clearly disproportionate for the area and would result in the village losing its identity or even its existence, and with 'creeping coalescence' simply become part of Ipswich with Bramford (similar to Kesgrave and Rushmere St. Andrew). Infrastructure would not be able to cope with this increase. It barely copes at present. A14 or A12 closure bring the whole of Ipswich to a grinding halt.

More details about Rep ID: 10539

Representation ID: 10525

OBJECT Mr john barratt

Summary:

Sproughton village currently has around 581 dwellings, and would appear to have had 2300+ houses (55% of OAN) allocated to it. This is an increase in the region of 397%! This is clearly what would be far too many houses crammed into what is really only a relatively small area. This is clearly disproportionate for the area and would result in the village losing its identity or even its existence, and with 'creeping coalescence' simply become part of Ipswich with Bramford (similar to Kesgrave and Rushmere St. Andrew).

More details about Rep ID: 10525

Representation ID: 10479

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

There is significantly more proposed than is needed for the 20 year supply so clearly some will be eliminated based on the strength of arguments and opinion both on validity and quantity. Which ones and where?
* The consultation effectively offers an adversarial process to support or object to sites in different locations so the number of responses from Sproughton will affect the outcome.

More details about Rep ID: 10479

Representation ID: 10451

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

There is significantly more proposed than is needed for the 20 year supply so clearly some will be eliminated based on the strength of arguments and opinion both on validity and quantity. Which ones and where?

There is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes - this is more simplistic as the JLP states but some tweaking could be done where appropriate. Allow settlements to grow in a more organic way.

More details about Rep ID: 10451

Representation ID: 10393

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

Historic England advocates a wide definition of the historic environment which includes not only those areas and buildings with statutory designated protection but also those which are locally valued and important, as well as the landscape and townscape components of the historic environment. Historic Environment Record (HER) will indicate areas of known interest, or high potential where further assessment is required before allocations are made.

Advice note 3 on site allocations in local plans sets out a suggested approach to assessing sites and their impacts on heritage assets. NPPF Paragraph 157 requires local plans to provide detail with site allocations where appropriate, supported by Planning Practice Guidance (further details in full rep)

More details about Rep ID: 10393

Representation ID: 10061

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

We would welcome each site allocation including a brief assessment of how the
landscape around each of the settlements contributes to and influences their
character and appearance. Rural settlements particularly, derive their form and
character from the landscape around them and this context should inform the
selection of any new development site rather than reliance solely on proximity to
heritage assets or existing accessibility.

More details about Rep ID: 10061

Representation ID: 10033

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

There is significantly more proposed than is needed for the 20 year supply so clearly some will be eliminated based on the strength of arguments and opinion both on validity and quantity. Which ones and where?

This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it. * A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes - this is more simplistic as the JLP states but some tweaking could be done where appropriate. Allow settlements to grow in a more organic way.

More details about Rep ID: 10033

Representation ID: 9976

OBJECT Julie Brown

Summary:

The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310. This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the houses required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes. This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising one parish in particular to the extent that it would be absorbed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford. I chose to move from Bramford to Sproughton, downsizing to a smaller community.

We want Sproughton Village to stay exactly that, NOT a suburb of Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 9976

Representation ID: 9913

OBJECT Professor Robert Turner & Mrs J.M. Turner

Summary:

There are three main areas of agricultural land threatened by the proposed developments land around the village; namely the land to the north of the village SS0670, SS0958, SS0458,SS0070. This land should not be lost to farming.

After leaving the EU, it will become even more essential to grow our own crops. Once built upon, such land is lost for ever to farming. Essential that the land to the south and west of the village is not built on as this is high quality land.

More details about Rep ID: 9913

Representation ID: 9799

OBJECT Mr Simon Wood

Summary:

Sproughton.
There are currently 14 Planning applications in for consideration within the village boundary.
The village could increase from 560 existing houses to potentially 2500+
The road infrastructure cannot cope with current vehicle movements.
Poor air quality exists at the Wild Man junction.
GP surgeries are oversubscribed.
Local A&E is oversubscribed.
Emergency services are already experiencing cutbacks.
The village school is oversubscribed.
The local recycling facility was closed some years ago which has seen a dramatic increase in flytipping.
Village identity would be lost. Sproughton would become a suburb.
Broadband infrastructure is at capacity.
Local flood plains exist but are being ignored.
Catchment high school is over subscribed.
Impact on natural environment is being overlooked.
A percentage housing increase should be agreed for every settlement. Doubling, trebling, quadrupling or worse should not be acceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 9799

Representation ID: 9796

OBJECT Jane Baldry-Smith

Summary:

Sproughton and Bramford .
My main concerns are:
Infrastructure
Lack of amenities
Environment. air pollution, especially at the junction of the Wild Man Public House , Wildlife and habitats.

Traffic always badly congested at peak times and incidents occurring on the A14/Orwell Bridge/Copdock Interchange.
I am concerned that the scale of the proposed development will result in our village being swallowed up and merging with Ipswich and in so doing destroy the beauty and character of our lovely village.


Jane Baldry-Smith

More details about Rep ID: 9796

Representation ID: 9795

OBJECT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

Current planning rules give even more power to speculators, developers and landowners. Villages like Shimpling simply do not have the resources to compete when it comes to challenging inappropriate development. The local authority seems to have no interest in our plight where the few can dictate to the many. If there is any local democracy out there we don't see it in action. Villages like this surrounded by farmland are 'easy pickings' for those who want to 'release land' for building purposes.

More details about Rep ID: 9795

Representation ID: 9792

OBJECT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

The Authority should offer support to non sustainable villages like Shimpling so that they can counter the large number of planning applications which simply swamp our resources. Producing a neighbourhood plan is not the way to go for these small settlements but we need some mechanism to enable us to be more proactive. We feel abandoned by the local authority.

More details about Rep ID: 9792

Representation ID: 9772

OBJECT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

I can only comment on Debenham. I do not consider the sites identified to be appropriate. No indication is given as to the number of dwellings to be built nor is there any suggestion of the Council's intention for the development of associated amenities and infrastructure.

The maps are generally not that easy to follow as none of the roads are named. However, looking at the map of Debenham it can be seen that the developments are massively larger than the original core village and although roads have been built within the developments, no amenities or infrastructure has been built to accommodate the large number of houses that have been built. Thus, it makes these proposals untenable for the village life of the inhabitants.

More details about Rep ID: 9772

Representation ID: 9523

OBJECT Mr Peter Bellerby

Summary:

School is full in Norton and has minimal scope to be increased in size.

The location of any new houses is very important for a rural village which does not want to see the use of fields for housing as this would ruin the character of the Village. Instead new houses should be fitted into the existing layout of the Village without using green fields unnecessarily.

Generally smaller less expensive properties are needed for Norton that local people can afford.

Traffic is also an issue for Norton as the A1088 runs through the middle of the village - safety issue

More details about Rep ID: 9523

Representation ID: 9512

OBJECT Mr M.J. Amps

Summary:

It has been brought to my attention that there is a proposed development of considerable magnitude in Glemsford running from the Church to the old silk factory?
Glemsford has already seen major development behind Brook Street and further development at the top of Brook Street. These have had an impact on the infrastructure and nothing has been done to ameliorate this impact.
A further development of up to 25% more housing is unacceptable with the current level of schools,doctors,roads,sewage etc.
I therefore wish you to note this as my foral objection to your plan and I would be pleased to expand on this and other matters on my return next week

More details about Rep ID: 9512

Representation ID: 9503

OBJECT Jonathan & Penelope Marland

Summary:

Gislingham
In addition we feel the development of the southern side of Mill Street and the completion of the proposed development behind St Mary's Church should be fulfilled before new agricultural land is taken for development.

More details about Rep ID: 9503

Representation ID: 9482

OBJECT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Bacton has outline approvals/applications for 242 dwellings, with consultation underway for a further 50. This represents an increase of approximately 60% on the size of the present village. This is well above a 'fair share' for a core village, which we calculate as being about 120 dwellings over 20 years. Growth of this magnitude needs to be managed carefully, with the provision of adequate infrastructure in advance of any significant development. Potential expansion of surrounding villages will also have an impact on provision of education and healthcare in Bacton and the other core villages in the functional cluster. There is very strong feeling in the community that it retains a village atmosphere, this is evident in The Statement of Community Engagement detailing the response to a public consultation in the village held on 6th. July 2017 in connection with planning application DC/17/05423

More details about Rep ID: 9482

Representation ID: 9314

COMMENT Wickham Skeith Parish Council (Tara Goodacre)

Summary:

Following consultation with residents, the Parish Council would like to highlight the following views:
Majority agreement that there would be a need for some new houses within the village (Yes 76% no 16%)
Majority agreement that the village could accommodate between 10 - 20 new houses over the next 18 years or so years (Yes 74%, No 20%)
Preferred option would be for infill/small-scale only, no large scale developments
Preferred housing to be; Sheltered 16, Starter 16%, Affordable 14%, Self-build 12%, Eco 12%, Social 10%, Not large 4%, None 2%.
There are many concerns with regards to infrastructure, ie, increased traffic is of great concern to residents, as well as roads, parking and other services being highlighted.

More details about Rep ID: 9314

Representation ID: 9290

OBJECT Bramford Parish Council (Mr Gareth Key)

Summary:

The 2005 Bramford Parish Plan and Village Design Statement was updated in 2012. It reiterated that residents value the fact that Bramford is a rural community and not a suburb of Ipswich and are keen for that status to remain. Although its proximity to Ipswich and major road transport links are seen to be advantageous, being part of the Suffolk countryside is equally important. Bramford is not an isolated community but it is fiercely proud of its village identity and has a desire to remain separate from both Ipswich and Sproughton. New housing should maximise the use of infill and brownfield sites before encroaching on fresh land.
The two guiding principles of all the recommendations in the Village Design Statement are that the landscape, settlement and buildings in Bramford should be in harmony and typical of a Suffolk village in our century and that Bramford should not come to look like a suburb of Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 9290

Representation ID: 9286

OBJECT Paul Bastick & Sally Kington

Summary:

For all the reasons given by Bentley Parish Council in their response to the Babergh & Mid-Suffolk Joint Local Plan, we strongly object to the imposition on Bentley or Capel St Mary/Copdock/Washbrook of the scale of new housing proposed.

Our objections are particularly based on the strain on utilities and an over-increase of traffic.

Bentley Parish Council has already initiated a project to build 6-8 affordable homes in accordance with a Community Housing Needs assessment of 2014/15 and has approved planning applications for 20 new houses.

More details about Rep ID: 9286

Representation ID: 9274

OBJECT Elmsett Parish Council (Andrea Newman)

Summary:

We do not believe that all the sites identified for Elmsett are needed as this would lead to a gross overdevelopment for the village (Q78). Site SS0212 has just been approved for 41 dwellings and part of SS0232 was approved for 7 dwellings in June this year. That is at least 48 new dwellings, 15% more than existing and we believe this may well be enough for the village for the plan period.

Experience has shown us that development and particularly in small villages does need to be controlled and kept to a level that allows an assimilation of the new growth into the social fabric of the village. Too much development delivered too quickly will tend to produce 'social ghetto's' within the existing community.

More details about Rep ID: 9274

Representation ID: 9258

OBJECT V & R Dale

Summary:

We vehemently object to any large scale housing developments in our area

Despite national & local government's apparent mantra of 'build, build, build', our local communities (especially the villages) are in no position to support large increases in population, and the inevitable extra traffic on our already crowded roads. Apart from the strain on our transport system, our doctors and hospitals are already struggling to cope with the existing population, without any extra demands being made on their services.

In the race to concrete over our precious landscape, no thought appears to be being given to food production, or the quality of life for existing residents. On top of these considerations, wildlife will be under even greater pressure as their habit is destroyed.

More details about Rep ID: 9258

Representation ID: 9229

OBJECT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

The JLP proposes sites across the district which have come forward for development and which they provisionally assess as being technically acceptable. There is significantly more proposed than is needed for the 20 year supply so clearly some will be eliminated based on the strength of arguments and opinion both on validity and quantity.

More details about Rep ID: 9229

Representation ID: 9177

OBJECT Moira Temme

Summary:

Sproughton:

As a Sproughton resident I am acutely aware of the short coming of every local amenity, with the exception of supermarkets of which we an abundance.
Our bus service provides extremely limited access in and out of the village, forcing more cars on the road.
The village has no doctor surgery, dental practice or secondary school and once again more vehicles are needed to access these services. Services which are in short supply nationally and cannot be guaranteed to accompany a large housing project.
Footpaths are limited and poorly maintained, and roads are dangerous for cyclists. In the light of Brexit it is likely that good agricultural land will become a more valuable asset in the near future.

More details about Rep ID: 9177

Representation ID: 9176

OBJECT Alan Temme

Summary:

Sproughton:

As a Sproughton resident I am keenly aware of the poor road infrastructure surrounding the village which, at important times of the day, is unable to cope with the number of cars and lorries on the road, and the extremely poor provision for pedestrians.

I understand that a great deal of permission has already been granted for properties which have yet to be started and which will increase the amount of traffic in the area without further large number of houses being built.

Traffic concerns from Suffolk One, Hadleigh Road, the A1071 and the A14/A12 and Copdock roundabout. Sproughton is poorly served by doctors surgeries, dental practices, public transport or local schools.

More details about Rep ID: 9176

Representation ID: 9175

OBJECT J D Pickett

Summary:

Finally I consider the amount of development proposed for Sproughton is disproportionate at 55.11% of all development proprosed for Babergh. It would increase the size of Sproughton by 397% and mean that Sproughton merges with Bramford and Ipswich.

Planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the District in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. This would be perceived as fairer.

More details about Rep ID: 9175

Representation ID: 9004

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

the sites identified are not appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary. As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities.

More details about Rep ID: 9004

Representation ID: 8983

COMMENT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

Summary:

The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310 (total obtained by adding up the number of house per site as per the 'Sites Submitted' document. This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes. This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising one parish in particular to the extent that it would be abosrobed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford.

More details about Rep ID: 8983

Representation ID: 7994

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

The number of sites proposed across the Districts delivers housing significantly in excess of the Districts' needs. Arguments for/against any particular site(s) should be made.
With respect to Sproughton, 8 sites have been identified in total (6 for housing and 2 for employment). These essentially cover most of the Chantry Vale (Wolsey Grange to the River Gipping), the old Sugar Beet site, and developments along the Loraine Way meeting up with Bramford . The amount of housing will lead to the coalescence of Ipswich, Sproughton & Bramford. I am completely opposed to. A much more proportionate fairer response is required.

More details about Rep ID: 7994

Representation ID: 7862

COMMENT John Tuppen

Summary:

For completeness should the plan include the very large industrial areas already earmarked in Gt Blakenham. some which have come in AFTER the JLP was started. eg 2351/16. Also the two areas below it for Greenhouse use. I would also have expected at least some recognition of the massive area that forms Snoasis development.
The relevance is that these need to be included for strategic purposes as they will impact on traffic and other infrastructure provision.

More details about Rep ID: 7862

Representation ID: 6562

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

From 4,210 dwellings - 2,320 of these, 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton. This is a significant over development of Sproughton, currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and RstA has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach, tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 6562

Representation ID: 6220

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310 (total obtained by adding up the number of house per site as per the 'Sites Submitted' document. This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes - this is more simplisitic as the JLP states but some tweaking could be done where appropriate. This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising one parish in particular to the extent that it would be abosrobed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford.

More details about Rep ID: 6220

Representation ID: 5523

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

The land identified in the Parish of Sproughton is not suitable for Major development that is proposed far in excess of the requirement as Babergh Council forecasts.

2310 properties with the subsequent traffic use of arable land and amounting to 55%of the total projection is trying it on to say the least.

Pro rata this across the parish the 4210 OAN should not be dumped on Sproughton alone and as mentioned previously judge the effect of BREXIT

More details about Rep ID: 5523

Representation ID: 5247

OBJECT Mr Jonathan Scott Barber

Summary:

I understand that Crown Chicken have announced the closure of their Weybread plant. May I enquire into the policy for development of such "brown field sites"? There are such sites within Fressingfield and yet they are not on the Joint Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 5247

Representation ID: 4852

COMMENT Mrs Alison Crane

Summary:

The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310. This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the houses required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes. This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising one parish in particular to the extent that it would be absorbed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford.

We want Sproughton Village to stay exactly that, NOT a suburb of Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 4852

Representation ID: 3963

OBJECT Mr Craig Bryson

Summary:

Belstead and Copdock:
No official notice of planning proposals communicated.
No infrastructure to support the expansion. Belstead was gridlocked due to an incident on the Orwell Bridge - how would an increase in population benefit such scenarios?
The average income in Ipswich is just under £25,000. Can you confirm that the houses built will be sold for £100,000.
No plans for the provision of additional services.
By developing areas of countryside which are used by walkers/runners/cyclists you are going against government emphasis on exercise. There are plenty of wild animals in the area. Building in front of my Grade II listed property will destroy its listing.

More details about Rep ID: 3963

Representation ID: 3834

OBJECT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

The land identified in the Parish of Sproughton is not suitable for Major development that is proposed far in excess of the requirement as Babergh Council forecasts.

2310 properties with the subsequent traffic use of arable land and amounting to 55%of the total projection is trying it on to say the least.

Pro rata this across the parish the 4210 OAN should not be dumped on Sproughton alone and as mentioned previously judge the effect of BREXIT

More details about Rep ID: 3834

Representation ID: 2452

OBJECT mr John Dennis

Summary:

Farm land if developed for housing is lost forever at a time when being able to produce enough food without relying on imports is so important. Farm land also provides a good habitat for insets and wild life, a recent survey by RIS found a dramatic decline in pollen carrying insects.

Housing development on such a large scale creates enormous demands on the existing infrastructure which is inadequate and requires a commitments to provide new roads large enough to cope with new levels of traffic and provide adequate parking.

NHS hospitals under pressure need more support not more demands.

More details about Rep ID: 2452

Representation ID: 1384

COMMENT Ministry of Defence (Ms Debbie Barker)

Summary:

Requirement to consult upon any relevant planning application having regard to the MOD height and technical safeguarding zones for the main operational base of Wattisham Airfield extends over the area of Babergh and Mid Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 1384

Representation ID: 1344

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

'Potential Land for Development': the SHELAA map is slightly misleading as it doesn't include some areas round Sudbury which have been built on (S end of Rugby Rd estate, Gt Cornard; Clermont Rd estate Sudbury), and others which are in the planning pipeline: (proposed by-pass route, Waldingfield Rd orchard & 'Bird Land').

More details about Rep ID: 1344

Representation ID: 1329

OBJECT Peter Wright

Summary:

There should be no development between Parsons' Lane, Barking & Needham Market because environmentally sensitive, considerable HGV & Army traffic.

There should be no development between villages. Roads not wide enough to take increased traffic. Extra infrastructure needed.

More details about Rep ID: 1329

Representation ID: 1317

COMMENT Paulin Goonan

Summary:

Stowmarket.

Make better use of Brownfield sites - within the town there are lots of dilapidated buildings, encourage more sustainable development rather than greenfield.

More details about Rep ID: 1317

Representation ID: 898

COMMENT CLH Pipeline System Ltd represented by Fisher German (Ms. Emma Pattison)

Summary:

Please find attached a plan of our clients apparatus. We would ask that you contact us if any works are in the vicinity of the CLH-PS pipeline or alternatively go to www.linesearchbeforeudig.co.uk our free online enquiry service.

More details about Rep ID: 898

Representation ID: 781

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

Summary:

It is very disappointing that the use of "brownfield" sites is not prioritised for development before virgin sites are considered. This would seem a major failure of the Draft Plan. Indeed the Sustainability Assessment Report is headed " Housing Targets for Greenfield Sites". There is no mention of using brownfield sites. This clearly is a priority in National Planning Guidance and should be reinforced in this document.

More details about Rep ID: 781

Representation ID: 760

OBJECT Cheryl J. Littleboy

Summary:

Please don't spoil Suffolk, but I am afraid it is now being spoilt as I write. Too many houses being built in small villages. I think building a new small town would be a better idea. Perhaps Mildenhall Airfield could be considered. I was bought up in Framlingham (for four generations). It has been ruined, for too much development in a small town. Could we utilise flats above shops, many sit empty, perhaps for young couples for a year or two. A lot of empty properties all over could be perhaps compulsory used for people before keep building.

More details about Rep ID: 760

Representation ID: 601

COMMENT Mr & Mrs Mockford

Summary:

We need to be mindful of what has detrimentally happened and continues to happen to Woolpit and this should not be allowed to happen to Drinkstone. Drinkstone and its villagers have a strong sense of camaraderie and without the appropriate controls in place, which I do not see in the current consultation document, there is a high risk of Drinkstone becoming just another suburb of Bury St Edmunds and I for one, do not want to see this happen.

More details about Rep ID: 601

Representation ID: 590

OBJECT Mr Paul Barker

Summary:

If the plan is left to go ahead as drafted, we are in danger of loosing the very foundations that our country is built on.

The plans will basically make Barham/Claydon a suburb of Ipswich and not a stand alone village community. Views of local community must be listened too.

It is important that we protect the land we have, restrict the expansion of the concrete fields and ensure we allow as much land as possible is free to support our wildlife. We have to draw the line somewhere and I feel this Joint Plan as drafted, has gone beyond that.

More details about Rep ID: 590

Representation ID: 575

OBJECT Mrs Abigaile Maydon

Summary:

The "vision" for the District over the next twenty years is terrifying. You have a direct responsibility to safeguard the heritage of what is now
one of the last truly rural areas in England but instead the new plan looks to turn it into some sort of commuter belt which will be destroyed
by over development which is clearly not for local need and is not sustainable in terms of employment, infrastructure and quality of life.

More details about Rep ID: 575

Representation ID: 506

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

We believe there should be a Development plan that takes into account the entirety of the Shotley Peninsula. The proposal that something above 11% of housing development over the next 18 years can be sited on the Shotley Peninsula relative to Babergh as a whole is entirely disproportionate to the area and pays scant regard to the infrastructure requirements. The population increase of over 2000 persons on the Peninsula will raise grave concerns about the road network, healthcare, education provision etc. but also risks spoiling the beauty and uniqueness of the area. We feel that Shotley Peninsula should be looked at as a whole rather than piecemeal.

More details about Rep ID: 506

Representation ID: 346

COMMENT Mr Ramon Studd

Summary:

I believe the supporting evidence SHELAA document to be flawed. The error is in Appendix 3 -Outstanding Planning Permissions. These outstanding permissions (Full and Outline) are those granted between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017. The Bloor Homes site of 175 houses (3112/15) is not included it was grated in May 2016 by Government appeal. So anybody reading the SHELAA report would not know there are 175 homes to be built in Stowupland, these outstanding permissions are used in calculations in the New Local Plan in assessing how many houses are to be build per year to plan end.

More details about Rep ID: 346

Representation ID: 151

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Appendix E - Outstanding Planning Permissions:
M/2207/12/Full - Barns fronting Star Yard, Millway Lane - permission Expired 17/04/2016.
M/2042/16/PRN - Barns adjacent to Bridge House, Ling Road - was Refused 29/06/16.

The following are for changes to existing dwellings are not 'new builds' and so cannot count towards an increase in the housing stock:
M/4408/16/FUL - Wood Cottage, Denmark Hill (Extension)
M/3276/14/FUL - Star Yard, Millway Lane (re-siting of Eco House on same plot)

More details about Rep ID: 151

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

Powered by OpusConsult