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) - Option ECON2

Representation ID: 13124

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Agree that we should allocate more land than is required for economic uses, but this land needs to be in the right location across the Functional Economic Area. It is not appropriate to take an authority by authority view as economic opportunities can be of benefit to the whole of the area.
The authorities across the Functional Economic Area need to be cautious though and seek to protect economic sites from residential development when faced with issues relating to housing land supply.

More details about Rep ID: 13124

Representation ID: 11969

SUPPORT Pigeon Investmenrt Management (Mr. Andrew Fillmore) represented by Beacon Planning Ltd (Ms Sophie Pain)

Summary:

Pigeon supports Option ECON2 to allocate employment land above the identified need.The emerging Local Plan should be aspirational in its outlook and we would point to the evidence put forward by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) of the ability for jobs and employment growth to bring forward infrastructure including housing. Pigeon do not consider it appropriate for the minimum amount of employment land to be allocated as suggested by Option ECON1.

More details about Rep ID: 11969

Representation ID: 11780

OBJECT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

Having looked at the East of England Forecasting Model which forms the basis of this work and looked at the housing forecast as well as the unemployment data for the district, it would appear that there is no need to move to option ECON2. More important here is the "type" of employment that we need to provide. This line of thinking is referred to again in the "Growth Consultancy Report" that was commissioned by Babergh in May 2014. This report is not referred to in the Draft Local Plan Economy section.

More details about Rep ID: 11780

Representation ID: 11487

SUPPORT Ichiban Sushi and Woolpit Business Parks represented by Trilogie CRE (Mr Roland Browning)

Summary:

If existing substantial businesses have to relocate to grow because of a 'just enough' policy on employment land, new investment leading to new jobs will be heavily constrained.

More details about Rep ID: 11487

Representation ID: 11208

OBJECT Wetheringsett cum Brockford Parish Council (Lynne Cockerton)

Summary:

We therefore object to ECON2 to allocate more than required.

The SNA considers factors may result in stronger growth in a number of sectors including agriculture, computing and technology, education, energy, health and care and advanced manufacturing and engineering, we accept there may need to be some flexibility beyond B class - however existing brownfield sites should be developed, before any allocation of new greenfield sites or agricultural land.

More details about Rep ID: 11208

Representation ID: 10308

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We support option ECON2 in line with the Council's preference. However, land that shows no evidence of demand for employment use must quickly and efficiently be identified as available for alternative uses, such as residential use. The methods of assessing this demand must not be complicated and must not hold up the process of identifying this land for residential use.

More details about Rep ID: 10308

Representation ID: 8979

SUPPORT Artisan PPS Ltd (Mr. Leslie Short)

Summary:

this is the only sensible and pragmatic option. The role of land use planning for business is to ensure that the right land/premises is readily available for business with a good choice of quality and size. Having choice means 'over' provision of land or perhaps better termed 'generous' provision for employment opportunity.

More details about Rep ID: 8979

Representation ID: 8651

SUPPORT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

agreed

More details about Rep ID: 8651

Representation ID: 8318

OBJECT Mr Mark Allen

Summary:

I object to the adoption of more than the minimum employment land given that more than 100 hectares of employment land have been identified against an assessed requirement of just 9 hectares.
Existing brownfield sites should be developed before there is any allocation of new greenfield sites or agricultural land.

More details about Rep ID: 8318

Representation ID: 8197

OBJECT Mrs Christine Double

Summary:

There already seems to be more land allocated than is required, even by forecasts. I would object to industry creeping into rural areas for the sake of spreading locations more widely.

More details about Rep ID: 8197

Representation ID: 8097

OBJECT Mr Sam Surl

Summary:

According to respected forecasting models there is already more than enough land identified for these purposes in Mid Suffolk. I therefore strongly object to the identification of more than is required, especially if the land identified is currently high quality agricultural land. Existing brownfield sites should be developed before any other land is considered for such development. In addition to these considerations, the unnecessary identification of such land (even if for long-term development) can have a detrimental effect on local communities and the well-being of their residents.

More details about Rep ID: 8097

Representation ID: 7937

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

* As in ECON1 above this is already covered and then some, by the Sugar Beet factory
* Other than new strategic sites that need to be located in a specific location for a site specific purpose.

More details about Rep ID: 7937

Representation ID: 7193

OBJECT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

With huge strains on the current infrastructure and near full employment there is no need to allocate above the identified need

More details about Rep ID: 7193

Representation ID: 7026

SUPPORT Mr. David Cutts

Summary:

To ensure adequate employment areas to support real long term (manufacturing) employment.

More details about Rep ID: 7026

Representation ID: 6217

SUPPORT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

Attracting new employment uses into the area requires an availability of a mixture of sites preferably in a variety of land ownerships. Even allocated sites may not be readily available e.g. land owners may be holding out for residential use. Therefore it is wise to over-allocate sites if you really want things to happen.

More details about Rep ID: 6217

Representation ID: 6185

SUPPORT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

We support ECON2 which would allocate more employment land than forecast as necessary in the East of England Forecasting Model. Sites should be allocated at Core Villages to help create balanced communities, boost local housing demand and create local job opportunities for village residents

More details about Rep ID: 6185

Representation ID: 5678

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

Reduce the business rates on existing vacant commercial properties to encourage full occupation.

More details about Rep ID: 5678

Representation ID: 5577

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 5577

Representation ID: 5521

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

Need to have sufficient capacity to support potential jobs growth.

More details about Rep ID: 5521

Representation ID: 4708

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 4708

Representation ID: 4238

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Allocate the need, no reason to over allocate - could lead to less desirable sites being developed rather than prime sites.

More details about Rep ID: 4238

Representation ID: 3998

SUPPORT Sudbury Town Council (Mrs Jacqueline Howells)

Summary:

Sudbury Town Council supports ECON2

More details about Rep ID: 3998

Representation ID: 3265

OBJECT Mr Matthew Bush

Summary:

Employment land requirements for 2014-2036 being forecast at 9.4hectares in Mid-Suffolk and there are some 113.41 hectares of employment land available in MidSuffolk, including 51.3 hectares at Eye Airfield. I therefore object to ECON2 to allocate more than required.

The SNA considers factors may result in stronger growth in a number of sectors including agriculture, computing and technology, education, energy, health and care and advanced manufacturing and engineering, I accept there may need to be some flexibility beyond B class - however existing brownfield sites should be developed, before any allocation of new greenfield sites or agricultural land.

More details about Rep ID: 3265

Representation ID: 2549

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

Flexibility and choice

More details about Rep ID: 2549

Representation ID: 1889

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

Economic growth is not just sites you need a local reservoir of potential employees.

More details about Rep ID: 1889

Representation ID: 1147

SUPPORT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

allocate more for flexibility

More details about Rep ID: 1147

Representation ID: 988

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

more allow for expansion.

More details about Rep ID: 988

Representation ID: 853

SUPPORT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

Biodiversity and Open Space have suffered in the past from a supposed lack of options for development; by selecting a higher proportion of sites, the choice could be properly assessed in advance of being required; against a Biodiversity and Open Space Strategy; however at the end of the ELSA process, there should be a final appraisal with public consultation, where a hierarchy of priorities is applied including Biodiversity and Open Space equally with other priorities.

More details about Rep ID: 853

Representation ID: 404

COMMENT Mr Ralph Carpenter

Summary:

Same principle as for housing
Demand for space for small businesses on dispersed sites with provision for high tech uses as opposed to warehousing and distribution of imported goods

More details about Rep ID: 404

Representation ID: 286

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

More land than required

More details about Rep ID: 286

Representation ID: 207

OBJECT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Could lead to dispersion of industrial units into rural areas

More details about Rep ID: 207

Representation ID: 74

COMMENT J. E. Knock & Partners (Mr. Chris Knock)

Summary:

Allocate at least 10% over the defined need to ensure enough land is available for development and/or re-use

More details about Rep ID: 74

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

Powered by OpusConsult