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) - Managing Infrastructure Provision

Representation ID: 12755

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

* Overall we agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, we believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.
* We fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.
* It is considered essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are phased and delivered as the development progresses. Past experience has shown this has not always been the case.

More details about Rep ID: 12755

Representation ID: 12684

SUPPORT Environment Agency (Miss Charlie Christensen)

Summary:

We welcome reference to the awareness that development should not be commenced or permitted until appropriate wastewater infrastructure is in place. We would like to see a relevant policy to ensure that foul drainage infrastructure is provided in a timely manner ahead of occupation of new properties

We recommend a WCS is completed, however if this is something you decide not to take forward you should consider embedding a development control policy within the Local Plan to require that developers provide evidence that they have consulted with the sewer undertaker regarding wastewater treatment capacity.

More details about Rep ID: 12684

Representation ID: 12681

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

* Overall I agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, any developments MUST (have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified. Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 12681

Representation ID: 12615

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* Overall we agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, we believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.
* We fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.
* It is considered essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are phased and delivered as the development progresses. Past experience has shown this has not always been the case.

More details about Rep ID: 12615

Representation ID: 11866

OBJECT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

* Overall we agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, we believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 11866

Representation ID: 11806

SUPPORT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

I fully support the draft policy to manage Infrastructure Provision. Planning permission should indeed only be granted if it can be shown that there is or will be sufficient infrastructure to support the development. I also support the associated Options. However, I would strengthen this further. I propose deleting the words "or will be" as this is too vague and encompasses an unlimited period of time. It is in effect a "get out of jail card" where infrastructure is promised at some vague date in the future or at "the next stage" but never delivered.

More details about Rep ID: 11806

Representation ID: 11564

OBJECT Annette Powell

Summary:

* Overall we agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, we believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided.
* We fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality. Considered essential any new infrastructure requirements identified are phased and delivered as the development progresses.

More details about Rep ID: 11564

Representation ID: 11371

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery. We don't want a repeat of the dealings and failed delivery of community projects surrounding the Snoasis project.
* It is essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.

More details about Rep ID: 11371

Representation ID: 11153

SUPPORT Education and Skills Funding Agency (Mr Douglas McNab)

Summary:

The ESFA also welcomes the draft infrastructure policy (page 67) which addresses a number of key principles including the need for sufficient infrastructure capacity to support new development, the need for planning obligations to fund such infrastructure, and the importance of the timely provision of supporting infrastructure alongside the delivery of new development. there is a need to ensure that education contributions made by developers are sufficient to deliver the additional school places required to meet the increase in demand generated by new developments.

More details about Rep ID: 11153

Representation ID: 11138

SUPPORT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Support for the principle but would highlight some particular aspects considered essential:
All new development should be supported by, and have good access to, all necessary infrastructure. Planning permission should only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is/will be sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed development.

Development proposals must consider all of the infrastructure implications of a scheme including existing commitments to infrastructure provision and cumulative impacts if the proposal forms one of a number of growth projects in a locality; not just those on the site or its immediate vicinity.

Conditions or planning obligations will be needed to ensure that any new development meets these principles.

Any development in Rattlesden is severely limited by the infrastructure, particularly road access and periodic but significant flooding and drainage problems.

More details about Rep ID: 11138

Representation ID: 10949

COMMENT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* Overall agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, any developments MUST have good access to all necessary identified infrastructure needs.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is legally binding agreement that identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there's effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.

More details about Rep ID: 10949

Representation ID: 10488

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery. We don't want a repeat of the dealings and failed delivery of community projects surrounding the Snoasis project.
* It is essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.

More details about Rep ID: 10488

Representation ID: 10442

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery. We don't want a repeat of the dealings and failed delivery of community projects surrounding the Snoasis project.
* It is essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.

More details about Rep ID: 10442

Representation ID: 10022

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery. We don't want a repeat of the dealings and failed delivery of community projects surrounding the Snoasis project.
essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.

More details about Rep ID: 10022

Representation ID: 9662

OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

* Overall I agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, I believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery. Guarantees should be structured such that they cannot be cancelled or avoided. Planning permission should only to be granted if there is a robust and effective legal agreement in place to ensure delivery.
* I fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.
* It is considered essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are phased and delivered as the development progresses. Past experience has shown this has not always been the case.

More details about Rep ID: 9662

Representation ID: 9211

OBJECT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Overall I agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, I believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.

Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery.

It is essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impact from other developments in a locality.

More details about Rep ID: 9211

Representation ID: 8749

COMMENT Mr Robert Walthew

Summary:

Although highways are the responsibility of Suffolk County Council, it is absurd to have a plan which proposes residential and employment expansion in Hadleigh without addressing a major infrastructure problem: access to the A12 London-bound. Benton Street is unsuitable for through traffic and the problem will not be solved by extra signage and build-outs etc. Potential development is identified for both sides of Hook Lane and the B1070 should be diverted along an improved two-way Hook Lane. You need a joined-up plan that addresses all of Hadleigh's needs.

More details about Rep ID: 8749

Representation ID: 8719

SUPPORT SHOTLEY PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dina Bedwell)

Summary:

Infrastructure, particularly from a highways, accessibility, public transport and key service provision point of view, due to Shotley's location, is extremely important for all our residents. It would be helpful if mitigating measures agreed at the point when a planning permission is granted were more robustly verified and/or possibly enforced.

More details about Rep ID: 8719

Representation ID: 8625

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

Babergh recognises that development needs infrastructure and will prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). However, until that is done it is not possible to comment on its merits. In most cases the Councils are not the providers and infrastructure must be coordinated on a County or region-wide basis.
It is essential that infrastructure is provided on a timely basis and that it is a condition of development that it will either proceed or at the very least keep step with the development. Wider works must also be considered at a formative stage and fully assessed before consent is granted.

More details about Rep ID: 8625

Representation ID: 8494

COMMENT Claydon Parish Council (Mrs Gail Cornish)

Summary:

Infrastructure and impact on , local roads,local schools, retail facilities MUST be a major factor is determining if a site is viable to be developed not only in area of site but impact on villages adjacent.

More details about Rep ID: 8494

Representation ID: 7849

COMMENT Mr Simon Wood

Summary:

Planning Permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed development.

Your own words.
Do a study on Sproughton. The High Street is essentially a single track road. Any incident on the A14 gridlocks the village. The village is used as a rat run. The school is oversubscribed. Local GP surgeries are over subscribed.
Show the residents the infrastructure plans before granting any planning permission.

More details about Rep ID: 7849

Representation ID: 6613

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

THESE COMMENTS REFER TO THE WHOLE INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION
There must be a strategic approach, whereas the draft merely extrapolates the current one. Discussion shows little sign of anticipating the trend to a low carbon future. There are implications of electric, communal, driverless vehicles. Provision needs to meet health needs such as for exercise and open spaces. An infrastructure of green corridors is needed, comprising more than just the river courses.
Infrastructure should promote walking /cycling and easy access to services.
Energy infrastructure should be moving to local networks which will strength resilience
Q63-68 are poorly framed - see comments above

More details about Rep ID: 6613

Representation ID: 6235

OBJECT Mr Keith Lansdown

Summary:

Significant improvements are required to both Hadleigh Road and Sproughton Road before any developments begin. These roads cannot cope with traffic volumes presently proposed developments will seriously exacerbate the problems.

More details about Rep ID: 6235

Representation ID: 6171

OBJECT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* Overall we agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, we believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery.
* We fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.

More details about Rep ID: 6171

Representation ID: 5474

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

See above

More details about Rep ID: 5474

Representation ID: 5425

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Infrastructure for new developments is essential, this should include roads and assessing the impact on already busy roads

More details about Rep ID: 5425

Representation ID: 4046

OBJECT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

* Overall I agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, I believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery.
* I fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.
Essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are phased and delivered as the development progresses.

More details about Rep ID: 4046

Representation ID: 3865

COMMENT Mr Clive Pearsons

Summary:

At times the roads in the Copdock Washbrook area are at saturation point, there is a need not only for local improvement/relief, but for more major improvements for the whole area, such as a northern by-pass for Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 3865

Representation ID: 3845

OBJECT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

* Overall I agree with the Infrastructure provision policy as set out. However, I believe that any developments MUST (not should) have good access to all necessary infrastructure needs that have been identified.
* Planning permission should only be granted if there is some legally binding agreement that any identified infrastructure services WILL BE delivered as will the timing of its delivery.
* I fully support and indeed, consider it essential that each scheme considers both the existing infrastructure commitments and cumulative impacts from other developments in a locality.
Essential that any new infrastructure requirements identified with a development are phased and delivered as the development progresses.

More details about Rep ID: 3845

Representation ID: 3363

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Merry

Summary:

It may appear that we have good access to the A12, but as the road is already very busy and the Old London Road is used as a rat run for people trying to access the A14 and to avoid the hold ups from the copdock Interchange. The increased demand by placing residential, commercial and industrial areas near to Folly Lane will not only effect the A12 but will have a knock on effect up to Swan Hill and the routes through to the A14 that are already congested

More details about Rep ID: 3363

Representation ID: 3148

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Webb

Summary:

Binding agreements prior to any building consent that road improvements must be implemented, we are under siege at this present time from traffic, and become gridlocked when A14/A12 closed. We cannot take anymore traffic without work being done. An area for parking a priority too many cars parked on the side of roads. Bigger school, recreation areas and medical facilities would be needed

More details about Rep ID: 3148

Representation ID: 3129

SUPPORT Mr Adrian Ward

Summary:

No development should be approved without a JOINED UP plan regarding transport, education and health infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 3129

Representation ID: 3088

COMMENT Mr Clive Harris

Summary:

Please include the A1071/A14 link proposal as you consider the need for additional transport infrastructure to accommodate the growth planned.
This link would help to relieve congestion (a) on the A1214 (London Road) in the region of Poplar Lane and Tesco, and at the A12/A14 Copdock Interchange, and (b) in Sproughton village. It would also provide an A14 off network emergency diversion route that avoids Sproughton village.

More details about Rep ID: 3088

Representation ID: 2489

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

Infrastructure covers many things and we should be mindful that in some locations less is best. However the obvious one is to have roads in place first and then build. Unfortunately it is the chicken and the egg and where does the money come from in the first place? If that can be secured first then lets be bold and have a policy to do just that!

More details about Rep ID: 2489

Representation ID: 1348

COMMENT Mrs helen fawthrop

Summary:

We must have managed infrastructure before housing development but where development is proposed within the Ipswich fringe, consideration must be given to the cumulative effects on the main roadways into Ipswich Borough Council area. Bottlenecks are already a problem on certain entries into Ipswich. The proposed Orwell crossings all increase traffic volume on Wherstead Road and development already planned for on the Shotley peninsula will increase the burden on this route. It is not sufficient to ask is there an existing road to access a development; we must give consideration to the cumulative effect,.and any local detrimental effect.

More details about Rep ID: 1348

Representation ID: 463

OBJECT Norfolk County Council (Ms Naomi Chamberlain)

Summary:

Norfolk County Council welcomes the draft infrastructure delivery policy (page 67). However, it is felt that the supporting text should make it clear that where there is likely to be any cross-boundary impacts arising from development in Babergh and Mid Suffolk, that developer funding will be used to mitigate such impacts in line with the CIL Regulations (2010 as amended) i.e. Reg 122 (Legal Tests) and Reg 123 (Pooling Restrictions).

More details about Rep ID: 463

Representation ID: 88

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

Summary:

Ideally road and services infrastructure is built ahead of any development

More details about Rep ID: 88

Representation ID: 51

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs David and Susan Musselwhite

Summary:

This is most vital. It is pointless to build houses for people who find living in them almost impossible as they can not access the services they need (health, education and economic).

More details about Rep ID: 51

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

Powered by OpusConsult