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 OS2

Representation ID: 12762

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

* I broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12762

Representation ID: 12688

COMMENT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

I broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12688

Representation ID: 11980

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

Summary:

Pigeon would support the Councils approach to open space standards as set out in
Option OS2 and the importance of having an identified need for open space in the locality, rather than a prescriptive approach. However, whilst open space should be linked to an identified need, care should be taken to ensure that new development schemes are not asked to address existing deficiencies in provision and should, in the main, be proportionate to the actual scheme being brought forward.

More details about Rep ID: 11980

Representation ID: 11880

SUPPORT Mrs Julie Clark

Summary:

* I broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11880

Representation ID: 11835

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

*We broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11835

Representation ID: 11808

SUPPORT Councillor Frank Lawrenson

Summary:

I support OS2.

With regard to Open Spaces, it is clear that developments need to be considered holistically with what is available in the surrounding area and not taken in isolation. This should mean that when a community levy is paid for open spaces, it should in certain cases be retained for when and where it is needed, rather than immediately having to provide say 50 sqft of open space on site. This is a common sense strategy.

I broadly support the council's options. However, I'm not clear if any of the options actually provide for this.

More details about Rep ID: 11808

Representation ID: 11737

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

The weakness in 0S2 is that it will be described otherwise as an aspiration rather than a requirement.

More details about Rep ID: 11737

Representation ID: 11465

SUPPORT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

OS2 seems sensible, although we are unsure why 1 ha is a cut off point. Why not 0.5ha?

More details about Rep ID: 11465

Representation ID: 10957

SUPPORT Mrs Carol Marshall

Summary:

* I broadly support Policy OS2 but am concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 10957

Representation ID: 10696

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

Summary:

This option requires open space on residential developments to meet identified needs. This ensures provision is appropriately made on a site by site basis, instead of open space being provided to meet pre-set targets, which may potentially not be relevant to the settlement in question. This approach is supported.

More details about Rep ID: 10696

Representation ID: 10381

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We support the Councils Option OS2, which relates to providing the identified need for on-site open space. We consider that any other option would be too prescriptive and would not be appropriate in providing the correct quantum of open space provision across the Districts.

More details about Rep ID: 10381

Representation ID: 9668

COMMENT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

I broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 9668

Representation ID: 9218

SUPPORT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

I support this policy

More details about Rep ID: 9218

Representation ID: 9217

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

I broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 9217

Representation ID: 9100

COMMENT The Woodland Trust (Mr Nick Sandford)

Summary:

Recognise the role of trees and woods in improving both mental and physical health and apply an access standard to ensure sufficient provision of natural greenspace and/or woodland.

More details about Rep ID: 9100

Representation ID: 8784

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The provision of on site open space, for whatever reason is preferred. The only option here I would support was if there was provision of adequate green spaces adjacent to a small development and mitigation payment was made to enhance or increase green space where it was needed more.

More details about Rep ID: 8784

Representation ID: 8682

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

yes

More details about Rep ID: 8682

Representation ID: 7791

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

We need as much green space as possible and not just token gestures in fewer locations as this is detrimental to wildlife and the local environment and landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 7791

Representation ID: 6617

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 6617

Representation ID: 6446

COMMENT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

We broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 6446

Representation ID: 6190

COMMENT Neil Fuller

Summary:

* We broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 6190

Representation ID: 6166

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

OS2, NROS2 and POS2 apply.

More details about Rep ID: 6166

Representation ID: 5658

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 5658

Representation ID: 5488

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

I broadly support this but am concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 5488

Representation ID: 5401

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support approach for open spaces

More details about Rep ID: 5401

Representation ID: 4134

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 4134

Representation ID: 4082

OBJECT Mr Vic Durrant

Summary:

I broadly support this but am concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 4082

Representation ID: 3856

OBJECT Mrs June Durrant

Summary:

* I broadly support Policy OS2 but am concerned that this does not result in the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 3856

Representation ID: 3393

OBJECT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Broadly support Policy OS2 but are concerned that this does not lead to the 'watering down' of existing open space provision existing within communities.

More details about Rep ID: 3393

Representation ID: 2593

COMMENT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

targeted at specific needs.

More details about Rep ID: 2593

Representation ID: 2077

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2077

Representation ID: 1177

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

sensible

More details about Rep ID: 1177

Representation ID: 1071

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

happy

More details about Rep ID: 1071

Representation ID: 686

OBJECT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC considers this inferior to the Babergh model.

More details about Rep ID: 686

Representation ID: 327

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I approve

More details about Rep ID: 327

Representation ID: 240

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

There should be adequate areas for recreational purposes on all developments

More details about Rep ID: 240

Representation ID: 90

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

Summary:

Best to satisfy the identified need

More details about Rep ID: 90

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

Powered by OpusConsult