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 L1

Representation ID: 12674

SUPPORT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

I would support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them. The JLP suggests that practices have changed to look at the landscape as a whole rather than pockets of "deemed significance" which is a concern as it appears to be an excuse to ignore recognised and cherished views/areas etc. that have been designated after many years of experience in favour of Public / Economic Need.

More details about Rep ID: 12674

Representation ID: 12611

SUPPORT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* We support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them.
* It then suggests that practices have changed to look at the landscape as a whole rather than pockets of "deemed significance" which is a concern as it appears to be an excuse to ignore recognised and cherished views/areas etc. that have been designated after many years of experience in favour of Public / Economic Need.

More details about Rep ID: 12611

Representation ID: 11801

SUPPORT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

The council has put forward two options and my take is that whilst much has been addressed in the Joint Babergh and Mid Suffolk Landscape Guidance, many things have not.
I support Option L1 until such time as Option L2 is amended to give it more weight. I am also unclear whether "minimising" impacts is a stricter requirement than "maintaining and enhancing". I suspect it is the other way around and therefore Option L2 will allow for more potentially inappropriate development than Option L1.

More details about Rep ID: 11801

Representation ID: 11773

COMMENT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

I believe it is important that we use "VIOS" (Visually Important Open Spaces) to greater effect and in effect ban building at all in certain places, especially if they support quality of life for communities and tourism. This is especially important given that the document currently contains no commitments to nature conservation land at all. There is also no mention of or preference shown to "brown-field" sites at a time when many people in Babergh feel that putting houses on Grade 1 Agricultural land is akin to a criminal act.

More details about Rep ID: 11773

Representation ID: 11446

SUPPORT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS strongly supports option L1. Babergh really does have some special landscapes. These have been documented and designated for many years. eg. the Inspector at the Tattingstone solar farm inquiry found the Dodnash SLA designation useful and valuable. It is evidence based and valuable, as has recently been demonstrated. These areas are also extensively used for informal recreation and all parties would want to know that they are valued and protected landscapes.
NPPF requires to protect and enhance "valued landscapes"
(para.109). Surely it is sensible for local plans to identify those landscapes which have for decades been recognised as such - like the Dodnash SLA.
SOS would also advise the protection of those areas in Babergh currently being considered for additional AONB status.

More details about Rep ID: 11446

Representation ID: 11366

SUPPORT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Relevant to Sproughton are SLA's (Special landscape Areas) which not only cover Chantry Vale but most of the area surrounding the village. Other local designations that relate to views, recreational and open spaces either do, or may also, relate to Sproughton.
* I support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them.

More details about Rep ID: 11366

Representation ID: 11236

SUPPORT Isolde Cutting

Summary:

I support Option L1 for the following reasons:
* Designations are useful to draw attention and give areas a more objective status. application by application basis. Although the existing designations may have flaws, they are more objective and simplify the decision making process.
*Achieving development without detriment to landscape is a complex process; I expect it would become more difficult to defend vulnerable landscapes (not just those with designations, but also those that need improvement) on a criteria based approach alone.
What remains is that all areas are not the same, and they should not be treated as such. To abandon the knowledge of local differences and sensitivities, rather than reviewing them and building on that knowledge, seems counter-productive.

More details about Rep ID: 11236

Representation ID: 10743

SUPPORT Brent Eleigh Parish Council (Mr William Grosvenor)

Summary:

Brent Eleigh councillors strongly favour the retention of special Landscape Areas (Option L1)

More details about Rep ID: 10743

Representation ID: 10731

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, cherished view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years' experience and often considerable efforts by communities, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare secretive species. They preserve the best of our environment & any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience and effort in favour of financial considerations.

More details about Rep ID: 10731

Representation ID: 10695

OBJECT Thorcross Builders Limited (A. Goodwin) represented by Springfields Planning and Development Limited (Mr Chris Loon)

Summary:

This option is unduly restrictive to a case by case assessment of the value of the landscape and so is not supported. Option L2 is alternatively supported.

More details about Rep ID: 10695

Representation ID: 9972

SUPPORT Julie Brown

Summary:

Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, cherished view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years' experience and often considerable efforts by communities, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare species. They preserve the best of our environment & any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience and effort in favour of financial considerations.

More details about Rep ID: 9972

Representation ID: 9937

COMMENT Mr Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

It has to be best to have certain areas where building cannot take place - otherwise no area will be sacrosanct and it will be a matter of every area fighting to protect itself. The dangers of a criteria based policy for all is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscape and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint Babergh and Mid Suffolk Landscape Guidance.' This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 9937

Representation ID: 9659

SUPPORT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

I support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them.

More details about Rep ID: 9659

Representation ID: 9349

SUPPORT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports the adoption of Consultation Policy L1 and not Babergh's preferred recommendation of L2.
The status quo should be maintained

More details about Rep ID: 9349

Representation ID: 9208

SUPPORT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

I support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them.

I am concerned that the JLP suggests that practices have changed to look at the landscape as a whole rather than pockets of "deemed significance". It appears to be an excuse to ignore recognised and cherished views/areas etc. that have been designated after many years of experience in favour of Public / Economic Need.

More details about Rep ID: 9208

Representation ID: 9119

COMMENT Janet Smith

Summary:

Strengthen landscape protection to prevent open space infill, for wildlife and local residents' health by walking, children's play, traffic damage minimalisation

More details about Rep ID: 9119

Representation ID: 9054

SUPPORT Mrs Sybil Wade

Summary:

I don't see options ! and 2 as mutually exclusive. You need to keep the designations as they can be marked on maps an are less likely to be overlooked, plus having clear criteria policies applying to both the designated areas and the wider landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 9054

Representation ID: 8644

SUPPORT Woolpit Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Agree should maintain local landscape designation

More details about Rep ID: 8644

Representation ID: 8471

SUPPORT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

These designations have evolved after generations of experience and understanding of the landscape. They are absolutely relevant, they are there to prevent fly by night officials and developers worming their way into the best of our countryside.
However I am concerned about planning's ability to apply the designations.
The interpretation accepted by planning for Wolsey Grange was green infrastructure within the development and three story houses round its perimeter presenting an ugly estate front to the views from Chantry Vale. This was completely unacceptable.
SLA /Landscape designation policy should be applied as intended.

More details about Rep ID: 8471

Representation ID: 8330

SUPPORT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

A very large proportion of Sproughton, not just Chantry vale, is Special Landscape area. What is important is ensuring that the designations are observed correctly. Special landscape area designation should protect the views and landscape. Views/landscape should only be accepted where permitted development is unobtrusive or enhances the landscape setting.

More details about Rep ID: 8330

Representation ID: 7451

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

To maintain the special landscape areas such as Chantry Vale and the Sproughton and Gipping Valley.

More details about Rep ID: 7451

Representation ID: 7213

SUPPORT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

support

More details about Rep ID: 7213

Representation ID: 6792

COMMENT Mr David Long

Summary:

These designations should remain with the same policy applying as has existed for a great many years. There would be very little point in having policies for the built environment if there is no such provision in the Local Plan for conserving areas of countryside which warrant additional protection. Such areas have been under pressure in the past. SLAs relate mainly to the river valleys and attract visitors. The Waveney Valley is being promoted as a tourist attraction. To dispense with the designation would leave such areas without much needed protection and would seem to run contrary to policies to promote tourism.
If anything the boundaries of SLAs should be reassessed. In some cases the extent of the area is based on field boundaries which do not correspond with the highest contours of the valley sides.

More details about Rep ID: 6792

Representation ID: 6751

SUPPORT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

This would be my preferred option. It is a concern that L2 will remove the designations and that the criteria are undefined or would not be rigorously applied.

More details about Rep ID: 6751

Representation ID: 6598

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

The approach of L2 should be combined with L1

More details about Rep ID: 6598

Representation ID: 6569

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6569

Representation ID: 6361

SUPPORT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Crucial to protect our Special landscape area and our unique countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 6361

Representation ID: 6350

SUPPORT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

These designations need to be upheld. There is very little power in the system for promoting the beauty and distinctiveness of the Babergh landscape as a hedge (no pun intended) against development. SLAs, AVRAs, rural lanes hedges, beautiful oaks and ash trees raise the spirits and enhance our well-being and mental health. All forgotten in the stampede to make the countryside pay for 'progress'.

More details about Rep ID: 6350

Representation ID: 6262

SUPPORT mr k j white

Summary:

We must not only maintain our present landscape designations but strengthen the existing environmental policies to ensure those areas not favoured with such blanket protection are nevertheless deserving of proper impact assessment. For example, when threatened by development, .the local and wider landscape settings which often enhance of the character of the many heritage buildings to be found in Mid Suffolk are currently given little consideration.

More details about Rep ID: 6262

Representation ID: 6160

SUPPORT Neil Fuller

Summary:

We support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them.

More details about Rep ID: 6160

Representation ID: 6101

COMMENT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, cherished view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years' experience and often considerable efforts by communities, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare species. They preserve the best of our environment & any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience and effort in favour of financial considerations.
* A point overlooked is the sequence of Landscape Character designations that run down from The Holliday Inn, through Chantry Vale and Sproughton and into the Gipping Valley. There is only one other place in Suffolk with the same combination and that is Dedham Vale which is designated as an Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB). Does anyone know of a famous local artist?

More details about Rep ID: 6101

Representation ID: 5932

SUPPORT Colne Stour Countrside Association (Mr. Charles Aldous)

Summary:

But see comments to questions 55-59.

More details about Rep ID: 5932

Representation ID: 5685

SUPPORT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

Our countryside landscapes need protecting but sympathetic development should be allowed.

More details about Rep ID: 5685

Representation ID: 5628

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Agree for special areas.

More details about Rep ID: 5628

Representation ID: 5539

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Martin Steele

Summary:

Landscape designations should be retained as they afford some protection against development and where development is permitted it should be genuinely required ,low impact and enhance the environment.

More details about Rep ID: 5539

Representation ID: 5426

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

See above

More details about Rep ID: 5426

Representation ID: 5325

SUPPORT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

* A very large proportion of Sproughton, not just Chantry vale, is Special Landscape area.
* What is important is ensuring that the designations are observed correctly.
* Special landscape area designation should protect the views and landscape.

It is worth noting that in the case of Wolsey Grange this designation was interpreted as a need to provide green space within the development whilst allocating 3 story townhouses round the perimeter which will severely damage the visual aspect of the valley and its skyline in direct contravention of the policy.
This must not be allowed in future developments.

More details about Rep ID: 5325

Representation ID: 4913

SUPPORT Mr Jeff Cribb

Summary:

It is essential that important local landscapes are preserved. If landscape designations were withdrawn I believe that it would only be a matter of time before a desire to develop in a particular area would over-ride any landscape considerations. I do not accept that considering each case would be as robust as maintaining this important level of protection.

More details about Rep ID: 4913

Representation ID: 4848

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Crane

Summary:

Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, cherished view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years' experience and often considerable efforts by communities, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare species. They preserve the best of our environment & any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience and effort in favour of financial considerations.

More details about Rep ID: 4848

Representation ID: 4786

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 4786

Representation ID: 4513

SUPPORT Mr Graham Jones

Summary:

Important visual aspects especially over important sites and buildings such as Beyton Church must be maintained.
Conservation Areas and Settlement Boundaries must be sacrosanct

More details about Rep ID: 4513

Representation ID: 4443

OBJECT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

The abandonment of SLA's etc. by the Council is NOT supported particularly as the 10 Landscape Character Areas proposed to be used in LR2 are rather crude, broad brush, defined areas and have no relationship to identifying particularly attractive or special landscape areas

It seems curious that in proposing this Option it is implied that outside SLA's etc the Council will not bother to ensure new development takes into account the local landscape and character

Cynically one might believe the Option LR1 is so expressed to ensure the Council's favoured Option L2 is pursued in the Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 4443

Representation ID: 4294

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 4294

Representation ID: 4052

SUPPORT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

* Support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them.
* JLP suggests that practices have changed to look at the landscape as a whole rather than pockets of "deemed significance" which is a concern. This appears to be an excuse to ignore recognised and cherished views/areas etc.
* The JLP refers to the 'Heritage Settlement and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment'. This will apparently identify areas where 'development can enhance the landscape'. But it is incomplete and nothing, not even the defining criteria, has been disclosed. This is of the utmost concern to rural communities.

More details about Rep ID: 4052

Representation ID: 3841

SUPPORT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

* Support the retention of local landscape/environmental designations and the robust application of the present policies applicable to them.
* JLP suggests that practices have changed to look at the landscape as a whole rather than pockets of "deemed significance" which is a concern. This appears to be an excuse to ignore recognised and cherished views/areas etc.
* The JLP refers to the 'Heritage Settlement and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment'. This will apparently identify areas where 'development can enhance the landscape'. But it is incomplete and nothing, not even the defining criteria, has been disclosed. This is of the utmost concern to rural communities.



More details about Rep ID: 3841

Representation ID: 3800

SUPPORT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

The Local Plan ought not abandon the long recognised and respected designations of Special Landscape Areas, Visually Important Open Spaces and Areas of Visual and Recreational Amenity.

To just rely upon "developer lead" landscape assessments will be self fulfilling in promoting Developers projects as BaberghMid Suffolk do not have the resources to undertake their own Landscape Assessments.

More details about Rep ID: 3800

Representation ID: 3651

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Powell

Summary:

Retention of local landscape designations supported

More details about Rep ID: 3651

Representation ID: 3604

COMMENT Mr Richard Howard

Summary:

Relevant to Sproughton are SLA's which not only cover Chantry Vale but most of the area surrounding the village. Other local designations that relate to views, recreational and open spaces either do or may also relate to Sproughton. .

More details about Rep ID: 3604

Representation ID: 3298

SUPPORT Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs)

Summary:

The removal of local landscape designations could lead to serious damage to local landscape quality. In the absence of a robust series of landscape policies to conserve both landscape quality and character, Policy L1 is currently the better option. However the Councils should continue to develop further policies to protect local landscape character across the Districts (not just in nationally designated landscapes and Special Landscape Areas) as identified in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment (2011) and the Joint Babergh and Suffolk DC Landscape Guidance 2015.

More details about Rep ID: 3298

Representation ID: 2961

SUPPORT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

It is essential to support the existing designated areas, developments should not be allowed which damage these areas.

More details about Rep ID: 2961

Representation ID: 2790

SUPPORT Felsham Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2790

Representation ID: 2503

SUPPORT Mr Brian HUNT

Summary:

Specialised landscape areas and local green spacers should be maintained.

More details about Rep ID: 2503

Representation ID: 2475

SUPPORT Mr Michael Stanley

Summary:

We must maintain all that is important to us living in a beautiful county and not let developers make decisions that will effect all of us and spoil it for generations to come, once a view has gone its lost.

More details about Rep ID: 2475

Representation ID: 2471

COMMENT Mrs Carol Ingleson

Summary:

I think we need to do everything we can to keep designated areas and not leaving it up to developers to decide!

More details about Rep ID: 2471

Representation ID: 2197

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

The classification of local landscape designations is based on the opinions of experts, there should be scope to add areas that local opinion considers important and to enhance such areas. The question should be included in neighbourhood plans.

More details about Rep ID: 2197

Representation ID: 2176

SUPPORT K&P Coghlin

Summary:

Important to retain those designations to protect these special areas from future development. This is what gives a place its character - visually and environmentally.

More details about Rep ID: 2176

Representation ID: 2171

SUPPORT K&P Coghlin

Summary:

These designations should be maintained. Removal of them would, in my view, make the areas in question more vulnerable.

More details about Rep ID: 2171

Representation ID: 2092

SUPPORT Great Finborough Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2092

Representation ID: 2075

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

Support current designations. The more you take away and tinker with things the more we loose.

More details about Rep ID: 2075

Representation ID: 1347

SUPPORT Mrs helen fawthrop

Summary:

Why can't we retain the existing local landscapes designations and apply a criteria based policy to non designated sites. In that way we remove the danger of losing sight of the special designated areas. This should not be an either or question but a combination of the two approaches.

More details about Rep ID: 1347

Representation ID: 1202

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

We cannot find evidence of VIOS or AVRA in Sudbury Area, so cannot comment on this option. We cannot tell from the map supplied by Babergh in 2017, whether the SLA extends on the whole of the Meadows as far as Borley Mill; we would OBJECT to this plan, if it does not. PLEASE NOTE: if however the SLA does extend to near Borley Mill, we must INSIST this should be referred to in the Plan's reference to the proposed by-pass, particularly in the 'Healthy Communities' Section of this plan's 'Vision and Objectives).

More details about Rep ID: 1202

Representation ID: 1158

SUPPORT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Alternative is less appealing, this option is 'maintain and enhance' versus L2's 'expected to minimise' where that will be subjective

More details about Rep ID: 1158

Representation ID: 1029

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

works well at the moment

More details about Rep ID: 1029

Representation ID: 717

SUPPORT Martyn Levett

Summary:

From elevated locations within this landscape character substantial views are obtained. This area is considered to have a wide zone visual impact. Due to the rolling landscape development in this area is considered to have a wide zone visual impact. This landscape consists of gently sloping valley sides and plateau fringes and is found on the east-side of the Gipping valley and from its tributaries from Sproughton upstream.

More details about Rep ID: 717

Representation ID: 698

COMMENT Cllr Clive Chopping

Summary:

I would be in favour of retaining the current designations subject to the outcome of the current review. Removal of these could provide carte blanche to develop on sites which were previously protected, as appears to have happened in Botesdale.

More details about Rep ID: 698

Representation ID: 409

SUPPORT Mr Ralph Carpenter

Summary:

Landscape quality is difficult to define using purely criteria based assessments. The current landscape designations are a good starting point for landscape protection, and they may need to be extended to take account of areas on their margins, or indeed areas which were not designated originally. A county wide reassessment and redesignation would place the onus on developers to demonstrate that they are not harming the landscape when presenting proposals

More details about Rep ID: 409

Representation ID: 365

SUPPORT John Brownfield

Summary:

This seems to have worked well in the past and should not be changed.

More details about Rep ID: 365

Representation ID: 227

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Maintain or improve local landscape

More details about Rep ID: 227

Representation ID: 58

COMMENT Ms Carolyn Spilling

Summary:

Importance and Protection of Valued Landscape at SS0201 to maintain Village Character at the same time supporting Village growth

More details about Rep ID: 58

Representation ID: 50

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

This is very important in our area.

More details about Rep ID: 50

Representation ID: 36

SUPPORT Mr Paul Macbay

Summary:

This approach would include the current special landscape areas. Which have been deemed 'special' previously. removal of this has already opened up a large 11 ha SLA area to potential development on the edge of Botesdale. if the SLA was in place it would have been protected from development. The landscape has not become less 'special' just that proposals say 'could we build on this now' which is not really following the NPPF guidance that local landscape protection should be one of the main aims of a Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 36

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

Powered by OpusConsult