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) - Option L2

Representation ID: 16159

OBJECT Paul Reeley

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16159

Representation ID: 16137

OBJECT Ms. Perpetua Ratcliffe

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16137

Representation ID: 16115

OBJECT Mr P. Pollard

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16115

Representation ID: 16093

OBJECT Mrs Natalie Brook

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16093

Representation ID: 16071

OBJECT Mrs J. Pollard

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16071

Representation ID: 16049

OBJECT Mr Gavin Brook

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16049

Representation ID: 16027

OBJECT Mr Michael Hills

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16027

Representation ID: 16005

OBJECT Mrs Helena Knight

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 16005

Representation ID: 15983

OBJECT Mr Roger Knight

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15983

Representation ID: 15961

OBJECT Mrs J. A. Moore

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15961

Representation ID: 15939

OBJECT Miss Jane Anne Moore

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15939

Representation ID: 15917

OBJECT Mr John Moore

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15917

Representation ID: 15895

OBJECT Mr Dennis John Griggs

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15895

Representation ID: 15873

OBJECT Miss Hockley

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15873

Representation ID: 15851

OBJECT Mr Castle

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15851

Representation ID: 15829

OBJECT Mrs Linda Rowntree

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15829

Representation ID: 15807

OBJECT Mr Carl Rowntree

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15807

Representation ID: 15785

OBJECT Miss Patricia Copeman

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15785

Representation ID: 15763

OBJECT Mr Barry Pearce

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15763

Representation ID: 15741

OBJECT Mrs Faith Marsden

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15741

Representation ID: 15719

OBJECT Mrs Clare Kiely

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15719

Representation ID: 15697

OBJECT Mr Michael Kiely

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15697

Representation ID: 15675

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Maisey

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15675

Representation ID: 15653

OBJECT Mr John Maisey

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15653

Representation ID: 15631

OBJECT Mrs Dorothy Scrivener

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15631

Representation ID: 15609

OBJECT Mr George Scrivener

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15609

Representation ID: 15587

OBJECT Mrs Linda Dennison

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15587

Representation ID: 15565

OBJECT Mr Ralph W. Godbold

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15565

Representation ID: 15543

OBJECT Mrs Blythe Smith

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15543

Representation ID: 15521

OBJECT Mr Richard Smith

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15521

Representation ID: 15499

OBJECT Mrs G. P. Godbold

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15499

Representation ID: 15477

OBJECT Mr. Giles Godbold

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15477

Representation ID: 15455

OBJECT Mrs Sally Hoskyns

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15455

Representation ID: 15433

OBJECT Mr George Major

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15433

Representation ID: 15411

OBJECT Mrs Audrey Cremer

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15411

Representation ID: 15389

OBJECT Ms. Cindy Hughes

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15389

Representation ID: 15367

OBJECT Mr. Anthony Wickenden

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15367

Representation ID: 15345

OBJECT Mrs Irene Wickenden

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15345

Representation ID: 15323

OBJECT Mrs Jacqueline Cordwell

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15323

Representation ID: 15301

OBJECT Mr Leslie Graham Walter Cremer

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15301

Representation ID: 15279

OBJECT Mr. D.I.O. Johnson

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15279

Representation ID: 15257

OBJECT Mrs D. Johnson

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15257

Representation ID: 15235

OBJECT Anthony & Tracy Keeble

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15235

Representation ID: 15213

OBJECT Mr. John Fensom

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15213

Representation ID: 15191

OBJECT Mr. Alan Cordwell

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15191

Representation ID: 15169

OBJECT Mrs Annette Dovell

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15169

Representation ID: 15147

OBJECT Mr. Martin Hewett

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15147

Representation ID: 15125

OBJECT Ms. Shirley Hewett

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15125

Representation ID: 15103

OBJECT Mrs. Carol Forward

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15103

Representation ID: 15081

OBJECT Mr. Grant Lloyd

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15081

Representation ID: 15059

OBJECT Mrts. Natasha Lloyd

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15059

Representation ID: 15037

OBJECT Mr. John Forward

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15037

Representation ID: 15015

OBJECT Mr. Hoskyns

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 15015

Representation ID: 14993

OBJECT Miss Isabel De Minvielle Devaux

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14993

Representation ID: 14971

OBJECT Mr. Ian East

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14971

Representation ID: 14949

OBJECT Ms. Tracy East

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14949

Representation ID: 14927

OBJECT Ms. Ilona Northall

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14927

Representation ID: 14905

OBJECT Mr. Alex James Richard May

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14905

Representation ID: 14883

OBJECT Mr. Richard John May

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14883

Representation ID: 14861

OBJECT Ms. Kathryn Anne May

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14861

Representation ID: 14839

OBJECT Ms. Olivia Frances Chloe May

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14839

Representation ID: 14817

OBJECT Mr. Charles Hogger

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14817

Representation ID: 14795

OBJECT Ms. Jo-Ann Hogger

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14795

Representation ID: 14773

OBJECT Mr P. L. Ratcliffe

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14773

Representation ID: 14751

OBJECT Miss Tracey Durling

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14751

Representation ID: 14729

OBJECT Mrs Carol Griggs

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 14729

Representation ID: 13231

OBJECT Mr. Artist

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. Dangers of a criteria-based policy is its subjective nature. The greatest concern is again the wording in L2 'all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscapes and to enhance landscape character wherever possible, by reference to the Joint BMSDC Landscape Guidance'. This seems to open the way for development that does not enhance the landscape character as is required by the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 13231

Representation ID: 13088

COMMENT Suffolk County Council (Mr. Robert Feakes)

Summary:

Unlike the Special Landscape Areas, the scale and purpose of Landscape Character Assessment is such that it is not capable of providing a substitute for AVRAs and VIOSs. The Historic Environment Record held by Suffolk County Council may be helpful in providing evidence in some specific instances. In order to demonstrate a robust process these designations and their evidence base could be reviewed as an addition to the Heritage Settlement and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment that is underway. In the absence of a robust evidence base it may unfortunately be necessary to retain and review these designations as an interim measure.

More details about Rep ID: 13088

Representation ID: 12809

OBJECT East Bergholt Parish Council (Valerie Ayton)

Summary:

We are opposed to L2 option which removes local landscape designations as a basis for decision making. Presumably they would be part of a criteria based approach because BDC can hardly airbrush out AONB policies etc, but it would weaken all the existing designations so should be opposed. Option L1 preferred.

More details about Rep ID: 12809

Representation ID: 11977

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

Summary:

Pigeon supports Option L2, which recommends the removal of local landscape
designations and the application of a criteria based policy with reference to the Joint Babergh and Mid Suffolk Landscape Guidance. We would consider that the local designations are too inflexible and are incompatible with the NPPF, which suggests a move away from 'blanket' designations to a more criteria based approach as envisaged by Option L2.

More details about Rep ID: 11977

Representation ID: 11882

COMMENT Dedham Vale Society (Mr. David Eking)

Summary:

We consider Option L2 offers are more comprehensive and flexible approach to assessing the impact of development in the landscape of the AONB than L1.

More details about Rep ID: 11882

Representation ID: 11822

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

*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. It is a ticking rural development time bomb.
*In relation to landscape types Chantry Vale has the same mix of landscape designation as Dedham Vale AONB. It is the only other place in Suffolk with the same combination of landscape type designations, totally justifying its local SLA designation. Being on the edge of Ipswich it is an ideal landscape for Recreational / Nature which would naturally link up with Chantry Park, potential footbridges linking to the Gipping Valley footpath and divert footfall away from the SSSI sites that need protection.
*A Landscape Project Area is mentioned, this appears to be the designation for the landscape overlooking the River Stour as an extension of the Dedham Vale, so a bit like the Gipping valley/Sproughton as it extends from Chantry Vale. Accordingly, this designation might be appropriate for Sproughton and the River Valley.

More details about Rep ID: 11822

Representation ID: 11701

SUPPORT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Yes. I support Option L2.

More details about Rep ID: 11701

Representation ID: 10693

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

Summary:

This option is supported over Option L1 as it provides more detailed consideration to be given to landscape impacts on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 10693

Representation ID: 10346

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We support the Councils Option L2, whereby local landscape designations should be
removed and a criteria based policy should be adopted.

More details about Rep ID: 10346

Representation ID: 10164

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

We Support Option L2
which appears to offer an NPPF approach to assessing sites, under which local landscape designation would be removed and a criteria based policy would be applied in which all development would be expected to minimise impacts on the landscape and enhance the landscape character wherever possible, whilst allowing for development in appropriate locations. This criterion based approach offers more scope in terms of weighing the balance of the proposed development in terms of the impact on the local landscape and the benefits of allocating residential allocations on the Site.

More details about Rep ID: 10164

Representation ID: 9655

OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall

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: 9655

Representation ID: 9350

OBJECT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

The Council believes that L2, as described, is not the most robust option. Criteria attached to Option L2, have not been adequately identified, so this Council opposes the adoption of L2

More details about Rep ID: 9350

Representation ID: 8669

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

We would support this provided it gave greater protection than Option L1

More details about Rep ID: 8669

Representation ID: 8505

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The 2015 Landscape character assessment confirms a sequence of landscape character in Chantry Vale that only exist elsewhere in Suffolk in Dedham Vale. So if this consultation is proposing an AONB allocation for Chantry Vale I would support it.
However this section relates to a Heritage Settlement and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment that no-one has seen created to decide how development should be integrated into a landscape, without any reference to what landscape, so I assume that means anywhere. That position is just completely unacceptable its open to abuse from developers and the subjective opinion of individual planning officers.

More details about Rep ID: 8505

Representation ID: 8337

OBJECT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

The problem with this option is that it is unclear as to what it would be. The option is to minimising impacts wherever possible, which indicates it is proposing an acceptance that sometimes it wont be possible which is a step back from ensuring landscape is preserved or enhanced.

The introduction to this section doesn't talk about preserving landscape areas but more about how development should be integrated into a landscape which would indicate that the council is looking for a policy to provide them with flexibility in planning approval rather than preservation of the best landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 8337

Representation ID: 8314

SUPPORT Mr C Partridge

Summary:

This seems a sensible option

More details about Rep ID: 8314

Representation ID: 7218

OBJECT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

Too much scope for mis-interpretation

More details about Rep ID: 7218

Representation ID: 6977

SUPPORT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

If Babergh is to enjoy the economic returns of Tourism then it must ensure that development improves rather than ruins the landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 6977

Representation ID: 6358

OBJECT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

Is this a serious suggestion? Who has any faith in politicians looking after the countryside when they have targets to meet?

More details about Rep ID: 6358

Representation ID: 6162

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

This 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: 6162

Representation ID: 5750

SUPPORT Paul Hales Associates (Mr. Paul Hales)

Summary:

Some local landscape designations have been very broad brush and have included areas that were inappropriate for inclusion, a criteria based policy would enable such areas to be reassessed.

More details about Rep ID: 5750

Representation ID: 5630

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Guidance should be minimum standard to include in L1. All areas should have maximum protection and maximum enhancement.

More details about Rep ID: 5630

Representation ID: 5432

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 5432

Representation ID: 5327

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

* The introductions to this section do not talk about preserving landscape areas but rather deciding how development should be integrated into a landscape which would indicate that the council is looking for a policy to provide them with flexibility in planning approval rather than preservation of the best landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 5327

Representation ID: 5199

SUPPORT Woodbridge Properties Ltd represented by Shallish Associated Limited (Mr A Shallish)

Summary:

The removal of local landscape designations is supported. The landscape character approach, combined with Statutory Designations, is more than sufficient to judge proposals and ensure that the landscape is protected and enhanced. Local landscape designations are therefore not necessary and could unnecessarily frustrate sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 5199

Representation ID: 5065

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

Summary:

Local landscape designations including Visually Important Open Spaces were introduced in the 1990s. The NPPF requires policies to be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space. The fabric of the landscape has evolved in the years since the designations were originally made and we consider that some of the current designations are in need of review.

It is therefore considered that a criteria based policy would allow flexibility for future development to provide enhanced and potentially better located provision for the benefit of local residents in accordance with the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 5065

Representation ID: 4787

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 4787

Representation ID: 4446

OBJECT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

The abandonment of policies and long recognised use of SLA's etc for self assessment of developmental impact of new development upon the landscape character of an area by L.C.A.s is a retrograde step as it denies protection of well recognised attractive and special countryside.

The L.C.A's ought be used in conjunction with the S.L.A.s to provide a strong environmental basis and backdrop upon which to devise meaningful environmental protection and enhancement policies.

More details about Rep ID: 4446

Representation ID: 4029

COMMENT West Suffolk (Mrs Amy Wright)

Summary:

The proposal to remove local landscape designations, raises some concern without its replacement with a criteria based approach to landscape issues.

More details about Rep ID: 4029

Representation ID: 3880

OBJECT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

In promoting this Option the text suggests that under OptionL1 the Council would disregard damage to the landscape caused by developments.

The 10 Landscape Character areas found in Babergh are rather generalised and broad brush descriptions of countryside which do not identify the particular elements that create recognised attractive/special landscapes which can/do cross individual L.C.A.s

It is doubted that the Council will be able to act as convincing guardians of the District's landscape under this Option unless it posses the required skills or resources to asses landscape impacts. Currently it is not believed the Council has those resources.

More details about Rep ID: 3880

Representation ID: 3347

COMMENT Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (Ms. Paula Booth)

Summary:

Designations for Visually Important Open Spaces and Areas of Visual and Recreational Amenity should be retained, as the Landscape Character approach is too broad to effectively identify such spaces, which generally are within or on the edge of settlements.

If a criteria based approach is adopted, evidence from Landscape Character Assessment should be accompanied by Landscape Sensitivity evidence to further inform decision making. Minimising impacts on landscape character with a clear expectation for developments to enhance landscape character should be included in the policy.

More details about Rep ID: 3347

Representation ID: 2575

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

potential to protect and enhance the landscape

More details about Rep ID: 2575

Representation ID: 2572

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

potential to protect and enhance the landscape

More details about Rep ID: 2572

Representation ID: 2374

COMMENT Polstead Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Provided it is appropriately resourced and applied consistently, then Option L2 would seem the sensible route

More details about Rep ID: 2374

Representation ID: 311

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I think this would be more flexible, and enable delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 311

Representation ID: 86

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

Summary:

A criteria based policy is the best way forward

More details about Rep ID: 86

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

Powered by OpusConsult