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) - Introduction

Representation ID: 13148

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

This section is helpful and clearly sets out useful background information to the reader, including the policy context, rationale and context for the emerging Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 13148

Representation ID: 13107

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Local Plan Timetable
Concern in respect of the timetable outlined in the consultation document and what impact this may have on the timetable for the SCDC document. Preference would be for timetables to be aligned across the Ipswich Housing Market Area to ensure that cross boundary issues are considered collectively instead of through individual examinations.

More details about Rep ID: 13107

Representation ID: 13106

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

The new Joint Local Plan
Reference is made to the countywide Suffolk Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Framework (SPIF), but it is not yet clear how this will relate to Local Plan documents. Notwithstanding this, it does reinforce the need to work together and produce shared/aligned policies across the Housing Market Area.

More details about Rep ID: 13106

Representation ID: 13105

SUPPORT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Support the Joint Local Plan being considered up to 2036 which is the same as the SCDC plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 13105

Representation ID: 13090

COMMENT Suffolk County Council (Mr. Robert Feakes)

Summary:

The County Council welcomes the inclusion of a potential Ipswich northern route during the local plan review process to explore all associated options. In delivering a new route, higher levels of growth may be necessary to secure sufficient funding. There will be a need to look jointly at the overall scale and distribution of growth around Ipswich.
The Plan also refers to "Sudbury Western Relief Road". The Outline Business Case, published March 2017, noted stronger public support for a western rather than southern route in 2002. However, further assessments and public consultation may highlight a southern route as more advantageous.

More details about Rep ID: 13090

Representation ID: 12981

COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

We feel the timetable is unrealistic. An aligned timetable needs to be adhered to as set out in the Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal Local Development Schemes. This would enable the collective consideration of strategic options across the IHMA and IFEA. This would also enable effective consideration of any future Northern Route and its potential relationship with future development proposals, as well as other spatial options, through Sustainability Appraisal. We welcome the mention of an Ipswich Northern Route. As Suffolk County Council progresses the Strategic Outline Business Case, it is imperative that potential future development options are considered alongside this document.

More details about Rep ID: 12981

Representation ID: 12907

OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

While recognising national imperatives and the shifting sands of Government planning policy, I consider that the vision of the Joint Local Plan (JLP) is short sighted. As a result, the document as a whole is built on weak foundations

More details about Rep ID: 12907

Representation ID: 12816

COMMENT Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council (Angela Chapman)

Summary:

It has not proved possible to answer the 79 questions. Generally, from the experience of individual councillors we are happy with the local plan preferred options as indicated in the supporting text.

More details about Rep ID: 12816

Representation ID: 12794

OBJECT East Bergholt Parish Council (Valerie Ayton)

Summary:

We recommend:
Start with a SWOT analysis to help identify the elements about the area that residents value and want to keep and the areas that residents want to develop.
Set out separately the assumptions that the Local Plan HAS to achieve to meet the national agenda (eg the number of houses the Government has targeted the District to build) and therefore MUST be included in the local Plan
That the Joint Local Plan will, in keeping with the NPPF guidelines, honour a Local area NP that is working with a CLT, especially local NP's that incorporate allocated sites for development in accordance with the local NP's policies and projects.
Build upon the vision in a logical order, that is reverse the order of the chapters to be Environment; Employment; Housing.

This will achieve a bottom up designed Local Plan that the residents feel they own, rather than a top down one which residents will resist.

More details about Rep ID: 12794

Representation ID: 12790

OBJECT East Bergholt Parish Council (Valerie Ayton)

Summary:

The basis of any policy choices/options that the reader is offered and their effectiveness to deliver will, in reality, be intrinsically linked to post Brexit conditions. These will set the economic and social context for the UK and Suffolk over the plan period to 2036. No mention or consideration of the implications of Brexit. This is a glaring omission and suggests a major flaw, raising major questions about growth/targets. Evidence base used, evidently starts from the wrong set of basic assumptions suggesting it is not NPPF compliant. Well recognised that the potential for slower growth is high so the growth projections in the plan need to be revisited. Centre for Cities identified Ipswich as one of ten cities identified as being most badly affected with an estimated local economic shrinkage of 2.6%. To ignore this is simply not credible.

More details about Rep ID: 12790

Representation ID: 12786

COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

In the introduction of your document, you mention the Plan will have regard to strategic matters identified in relation to the Suffolk Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Framework (SPIF) and the Housing Market Area. It is recognised that the Suffolk SPIF is still to be developed and it is important the status of the SPIF is clarified, however matters in respect of the Ipswich Housing Market Area (IHMA) have been discussed through the Ipswich Policy Area (IPA) Board.

More details about Rep ID: 12786

Representation ID: 12777

OBJECT Mrs Shelia Pryke

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 12777

Representation ID: 12555

COMMENT Fressingfield Housing Working Group (Mr Paul Woodward)

Summary:

Does not comply with some aspects of NPPF- does not specify density of new housing. Important landscape characteristics in the Joint Landscape Guidance are not captured in the settlement area means some landscapes may be vulnerable to "irreparable damage"

More details about Rep ID: 12555

Representation ID: 12445

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)

Summary:

This section is helpful and clearly sets out useful background information to the reader, including the policy context, rationale and context for the emerging Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 12445

Representation ID: 12293

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

This section is helpful and clearly sets out useful background information to the reader, including the policy context, rationale and context for the emerging Local Plan

More details about Rep ID: 12293

Representation ID: 12239

SUPPORT Mr S C C Dunt

Summary:

(no written comment supplied)

More details about Rep ID: 12239

Representation ID: 12164

OBJECT Douglas William Cobb

Summary:

How can there be a joint local plan when recent news is that the two Councils are not yet in full agreement as to the 2 councils amalgamation!

More details about Rep ID: 12164

Representation ID: 12087

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Gladman would highlight that there is a genuine opportunity for all of
the Local Plans across the Strategic Housing Market Area to be prepared to a common timetable and that this would provide the opportunity to coordinate strategic planning decisions under the duty to cooperate in a coherent manner. As the Councils will be aware, this is something that can be difficult to achieve when plan production timetables are not synchronised and often results in
the need for early review mechanisms to be contained within Local Plans.

Gladman welcome the opportunity to liaise with the planning policy team in relation to its plan making.

More details about Rep ID: 12087

Representation ID: 12028

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

We welcome mention of the work underway in relation to the Suffolk Strategic
Planning and Infrastructure Framework which could result in alternative delivery
mechanisms being pursued, which might assist in boosting supply.

More details about Rep ID: 12028

Representation ID: 11947

SUPPORT Fieldens Ltd represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

This section is helpful and clearly sets out useful background information to the reader, including the policy context, rationale and context for the emerging Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 11947

Representation ID: 11619

COMMENT South Suffolk Constituency Labour Party (Ms Emma Bishton)

Summary:

12 recommendations:
- explain clearly, the relationship between expected population growth and housing need
- include council/social housing
- more explicitly address the need for housing churn across generations and the impact on required housing mix
- actively pursue 'new settlement' option. Consider Raydon airfield.
- include measures to develop better public transport links. Publish a timeframe and solution for resolving the siting of the bus station in Sudbury.
- Delivery of Western Bypass should not be assumed, so alternative options for housing/industrial growth with the possible bypass should be set out in the plan.
- include measures to ensure dwellings must be completed in a specific timeframe
- include assessment of workforce capacity
- be transparent in dealings regarding development proposals in Sudbury
- indicate what flexibilities will be put in place for Brexit
- plan should be more ambitious about the potential to deliver environmental sustainability alongside new housing. Protect against depletion of natural resources, protect biodiversity and targets on energy efficiency.

More details about Rep ID: 11619

Representation ID: 11615

OBJECT South Suffolk Constituency Labour Party (Ms Emma Bishton)

Summary:

We acknowledge the need for an up-to-date plan, and acknowledge the need for
increased housing provision to meet the expected increase in residents over the
next 20 years. However, we do challenge the lack of ambition and leadership in
the plan, and do not think sufficient thought has been put into ensuring that the plan is actually achievable. We do not think this plan adequately reflects the changing needs of the existing and growing population, or accounts for the infrastructure requirements of either the anticipated number of households or residents. Not clear how the Plan relates to other key decisions taken by the council. Not at all clear how the proposed housing numbers are actually achievable.

More details about Rep ID: 11615

Representation ID: 11490

OBJECT Susan Macdiarmid

Summary:

objecting to the JLP
Prospect Hill highly unsuitable for any increased traffic, also Blackhouse Lane and Wells Hall Road.
Gt. Cornard has had three major developments of late
Severe shortage of school places, especially primary
Increase demand on doctors, dentists
Sudbury traffic/ parking stretched now

More details about Rep ID: 11490

Representation ID: 11315

SUPPORT Eleanor & Guy Barker & Mrs V Aitken represented by Savills (Mr William Lusty)

Summary:

Following a number of significant changes in the local, county and national context since the current Development Plans were adopted, Babergh & Mid Suffolk District Council's are preparing a new joint Local Plan to align their respective policies as part of an up to date Development Plan. Support is therefore given to Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils in taking these steps in accordance with the core principles for planning as stated at paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Support timescale.

More details about Rep ID: 11315

Representation ID: 11235

COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

We also take the opportunity to suggest that a better local plan should be accompanied by a better decision making process which is similarly visionary and fit for purpose. This should include meaningful engagement by the planning committee having proper regard to what is at stake, not just for communities but for applicants as well.

More details about Rep ID: 11235

Representation ID: 11212

COMMENT Bildeston Parish Council (Mr David Blackburn)

Summary:

We are pleased to respond to your consultation as below. We have chosen to respond in this form as we believe the on-line consultation is too constraining in some areas, although we have referenced our comments to individual questions where possible.
You will appreciate that we have recent experience of the application of current planning policy in Babergh, and this experience has been very negative. However, the intention behind our response is not to look back, but to help create a better, more transparent and more participative planning system in the District for the future.

More details about Rep ID: 11212

Representation ID: 11190

OBJECT Mr Nigel Roberts

Summary:

The plan has the stated intention to deliver growth, but the basis of the policy choices/options will be linked to post Brexit conditions. These will set the economic and social context of the UK over the plan period. No mention or consideration for the implications of Brexit. This is a glaring omission and suggests a major flaw in the plan's foundations. It raises major questions over growth targets. Ignoring Brexit means the plan uses outdated basic assumptions and suggests the plan does not comply with the NPPF. Growth scenarios need to be recalibrated based on the recognised potential for slower growth. Estimated that Ipswich will have an economic shrinkage of 2.6% due to Brexit.

More details about Rep ID: 11190

Representation ID: 11098

OBJECT Mr Mark Richardson

Summary:

Not against small scale development per se, strongly oppose to the grossly inflated nature of the plan

More details about Rep ID: 11098

Representation ID: 11083

COMMENT Education and Skills Funding Agency (Mr Douglas McNab)

Summary:

ESFA is the delivery body for many new academies/free schools. ESFA aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning departments to meet demand for new school places and new schools. The ESFA encourages close working with local authorities during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and to meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. Please add the ESFA to your list of organisations with which you engage. Please advise ESFA of proposed changes to the emerging Local Plan policies and/or evidence arising from these comments.

More details about Rep ID: 11083

Representation ID: 11078

OBJECT Mr Mark Richardson

Summary:

Not against small scale development per se, strongly opposed to the grossly inflated nature of the plan

More details about Rep ID: 11078

Representation ID: 11024

OBJECT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

NPPF par 155 sets out a clear principle that early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. Local Plans should reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any made neighbourhood plans.

Vital that the Local Plan is supported by the decision making process. The recent history of planning decisions in Babergh is far from satisfactory. Policy implementation must be fit for purpose at every stage and trust in the decision makers needs to be restored if the District Councils are to regain the confidence of the wider community.

More details about Rep ID: 11024

Representation ID: 10935

OBJECT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

In short, the JLP is a mechanical exercise as it stands and misses the opportunity to create a vision for South Suffolk that would both enhance it as a place to live by building up facilities that currently don't exist (e.g. transport) and preserve the things that give it the character that the residents love. In place of creative, imaginative planning, we foresee an amorphous urban sprawl developing with no real benefits to the community as our infrastructure and employment deficits leave us as a commuter suburb.

More details about Rep ID: 10935

Representation ID: 10925

OBJECT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

We believe creating a vision for a sustainable future depends on a grass roots approach. This means taking full account of the types of community to which people aspire before creating policy that can best fit national targets to the local vision. To achieve this delicate balance many councils in other parts of England conduct more primary research and provide greater transparency. One benefit of such research is to establish the parameters at an early stage under which development can take place.

JLP contains no evidence of viability assessments, which we believe should be commissioned. We call upon the Council to publish their Five Year Housing Land Supply data in a transparent format.

More details about Rep ID: 10925

Representation ID: 10921

OBJECT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

While recognising national imperatives and the shifting sands of Government planning policy, BAPTC considers that the vision of the Joint Local Plan (JLP) is short sighted. As a result, policy that forms the basis of the JLP is built on weak foundations.

We hope the Councils will progress to meaningful, detailed discussion of key points raised by parishes and towns across the region.

We understand that what local people want is not always compatible with policy makers beliefs. Nevertheless, much more can be achieved with the support of local communities that with the adversarial approach that has typified recent planning proposals. The only way of achieving this is to listen to communities and embody neighbourhood needs.

More details about Rep ID: 10921

Representation ID: 10467

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

Councils are no longer public services, they are businesses, only the elected councillors are there to represent the community. Their primary interest is profit and loss. Electorate are bound to pay their council tax by increasing their electorate they increase their income through new homes bonus, planning fees, 106 payments, CIL etc.

More details about Rep ID: 10467

Representation ID: 10460

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

Councils are no longer public services, they are businesses, only the elected councillors are there to represent the community. Their primary interest is profit and loss. Electorate are bound to pay their council tax by increasing their electorate they increase their income. Interactions with commercial interest can generate income through new homes bonus, planning feeds, 106 payments, CIL etc.

More details about Rep ID: 10460

Representation ID: 10226

OBJECT Mrs Ann Hurst

Summary:

I have been attempting to make comments to the Joint Local Plan proposals. It must be remembered that not everyone has a level of education to understand the document or the means to find the information on your website user friendly. It became very apparent at the village meeting for Copdock and Washbrook that the information about the Joint Plan had not been received by the residents and therefore limited time has been available to read and understand the document and the implications or indeed to unpick the planning jargon. Comments received during the consultation will not fully reflect the views and opinions of the community that these proposals will effect.

More details about Rep ID: 10226

Representation ID: 9903

OBJECT Professor Robert Turner & Mrs J.M. Turner

Summary:

The Open Day at the Blackbourne Community Centre in Elmswell was not a very suitable opportunity to consider in depth the proposed Joint Local Plan. Only 2/3 copies of the documents were available. Format of the document made it difficult to read especially as much of the language was technical. Display boards did not give a comprehensive picture of what is a very important stage.

More details about Rep ID: 9903

Representation ID: 9838

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

The document is light on policies so topics upon which comments should be sought are not there. There are too many questions and some do not clearly relate to development of a policy or a choice between two suggested possible policies.

More details about Rep ID: 9838

Representation ID: 9798

OBJECT Mr Simon Wood

Summary:

I have attempted to answer some of the questions in your Consultation document.
What a dreadful document it is.
Do you really expect a high response rate?

Engage properly with local residents on a level they can understand and interact with.
Many voices will go unheard with the current model.

Poor form Babergh and Mid Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 9798

Representation ID: 9794

OBJECT Mr Colin Johnston

Summary:

We need the local authority to take a firmer line in speaking up for the rural areas, their distinctiveness in terms of landscape and heritage qualities and the importance of small being beautiful. The draft local plan is (necessarily, I concede) statistical and functional, but where is there an inflection to beauty, quality of life and the health related benefits of walking along lanes and ditches and having sweeping views? When you have crunched every bit of data and tarmaced as much open space as you can what are you left with?

More details about Rep ID: 9794

Representation ID: 9685

OBJECT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

It is hoped that Mid Suffolk residents' opinions will be taken into account when finalising the Joint Local Plan particularly as it is well known that, in the past, little notice has been taken of the comments made by the Parish Council and individuals regarding the developments taking place in Debenham.

Concerns over the suitability of 'Market Pyghtle' and Cherry Terry developments and developers failing to adhere to the planning permissions granted.

More details about Rep ID: 9685

Representation ID: 9552

OBJECT Chris Brown

Summary:

I wish to register an interest in being kept informed of progress with the local plan (BMSDC JLP) and would appreciate acknowledgement of receipt of this document. At the same time I would like to register my serious concerns at the short time period given for the public response, and the abysmal design of the consultation document, whose complexity and phraseology makes meaningful response within the allotted time frame consuming and incomplete. It leaves a distinct feeling that the whole process is a sham.

More details about Rep ID: 9552

Representation ID: 9533

OBJECT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

I am not impressed by the consultation as a whole. It is too long, too complicated, too technical and access is too difficult. I understand that you think you have exceeded your statutory requirement, however you have failed to communicate in a meaningful way, or allow meaningful contribution.

This consultation needs to be done again, broken down and put in simple layman's terms. Methods of response need to be similarly simple. You will have missed out on a large number of responses by those who are daunted by the process or feel the whole system too complex and difficult. It is a shame as everyone should have the right to comment, not just those who are able to navigate their way around the documents and have a very significant amount of time to devote it it.

More details about Rep ID: 9533

Representation ID: 9496

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

As a plan it is flawed both in technical content and layout with omissions and errors. Its size and the fact that it covers two distinct Council areas make it a complicated and unworkable set of proposals.

More details about Rep ID: 9496

Representation ID: 9492

OBJECT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

The Plan (page 7) mentions other Local Authorities, but not the North Essex ones and Essex CC . Growth followed by infrastructure improvement as suggested is what has got us into our current logistical logjam and is holding back economic growth both in employment and house building:- only the naïve would follow a similar pattern. Why is this the pattern?

More details about Rep ID: 9492

Representation ID: 9334

OBJECT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

As a preface, Nayland with Wissington Parish Council queries the robustness of the evidence for projected new growth in Babergh that is assumed throughout the Strategic Plan and Consultation Document. These documents express trends as certainties and yet, this Council believes that economically, we are living at a very uncertain time. The Council is sceptical about the optimistic projected growth of jobs, for example in Sudbury. The limited number of access points into and out of Babergh contributes to factors preventing or inhibiting growth on the projected scale as identified in the Consultation Document.

More details about Rep ID: 9334

Representation ID: 9310

OBJECT Mr AJ Spratt

Summary:

The provided maps and descriptions are very poor and not understandable (SS0245 and SS0945).

The online comments procedure is extremely complicated and impossible to use for the vast majority of residents.

More details about Rep ID: 9310

Representation ID: 9074

COMMENT Mr Daniel lord-vince

Summary:

As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc, the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 9074

Representation ID: 9035

SUPPORT Tendring District Council (Mr William Fuller)

Summary:

Tendring District Council broadly supports the issues and options contained within this draft Plan. We are pleased to see that Babergh and Mid Suffolk Plan for their OAHN. It is worth noting our comments on infrastructure and transport.

More details about Rep ID: 9035

Representation ID: 8738

OBJECT Mrs Iona Parker

Summary:

I do not support a Sudbury western relief road. The impact on the natural and historic environment to the west of Sudbury would be too great. Other options for relieving congestion in Sudbury should be explored. There is no evidence that the amount of north/south through traffic in Sudbury is sufficient to justify a western relief road. No development is planned by the neighbouring authority, Braintree District Council between Sudbury and Halstead. The Braintree DC emerging Local Plan shows development elsewhere in the District.

More details about Rep ID: 8738

Representation ID: 8684

COMMENT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

Summary:

* Development shouldn't lead to communities losing their identities by swamping and creeping coalescence (merging of communities).
* Location of growth should be spread more pragmatically across Babergh rather than fewer large sites
* The following should be considered further for Sproughton: better transport infrastructure, more school places, accessible healthcare services, maintain and enhance environmental assets.

More details about Rep ID: 8684

Representation ID: 8441

OBJECT Mr Michael Beiley

Summary:

The end date of 2036 is too far distant and an interim date e.g. end 2022 should be inserted to enable a review to be undertaken of progress and take proper account of the impact of potential changes that will result from Brexit e.g. greater control of inward migration,the effect on housing and infrastructure demand and changes to local employment and industry.

More details about Rep ID: 8441

Representation ID: 8333

COMMENT Mr David Barnes

Summary:

The statement that "Housing and economic growth is a key factor in securing investment into existing and new infrastructure projects. Development should be planned to secure the delivery of key infrastructure projects across the County" is very concerning: do you propose building more houses in order to build more roads? This smacks of development for its own sake. In particular I am very concerned about the Sudbury West Relief road proposals and the potential serious impact on the town's Water Meadows, probably the most important piece of natural environment and amenity in the town.

More details about Rep ID: 8333

Representation ID: 7888

COMMENT Green Light Trust (Mr Ashley Seaborne)

Summary:

Green Light Trust is an environmental charity established in 1989. We have worked with local people in communities across Suffolk to improve the environment in which they live. Over 50,000 people have contributed to developing new woodlands, hedgerows and wildspaces. Based in Lawshall and conjunction with the Primary School, community group Forest for Our Children, we have made a substantial contribution to enhancing the village environment and reversing the national trend of decline in bird, plant and butterfly numbers. We believe that for every new human created there should be a new animal habitat. Please consider our comments to questions

More details about Rep ID: 7888

Representation ID: 7871

COMMENT Mr David Watts

Summary:

General: All this is well and good. But if you are to allow all these houses ensuring the infrastructure is in place to support them is CRUCIAL. This is mentioned on pages 96 to 101. BUT it is others responsibility to provide the required roads, GP facilities, schools etc and judging by past performance these aspects will be ignored. PLEASE FIND A WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IS PROVIDED. Otherwise roads and parking will become more clogged, GP waiting times will lengthen and schools will be full.

And what about jobs for the extra people?

More details about Rep ID: 7871

Representation ID: 7766

OBJECT Dr Ian Russell

Summary:

The people of Sudbury do not want "development" to be "planned to secure the delivery of the Sudbury Western Relief Road". We do not support that disastrous route because it does not support us. The beneficiaries would be some lorries and commuters from elsewhere. The strategic plan must recognise there is too much traffic for Ballingdon Bridge to be the only main route between Babergh and Braintree. What we need are roads for the growing communities east of Sudbury and roads that keep all lorries and as many other vehicles as possible away from the historic centre.

More details about Rep ID: 7766

Representation ID: 6838

SUPPORT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

The Parish Council of Thurston is supportive of all moves towards greater certainty in strategic planning policy which will allow development planning to follow sustainable guidelines.

More details about Rep ID: 6838

Representation ID: 6570

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

5 year supply; Why accept projections based on out of date data that set a housing need greater than the present number that they are failing to achieve anyway?

More details about Rep ID: 6570

Representation ID: 6219

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Attached is the full text of our submission. Individual answers to questions and option preferences will also be submitted interactively.

More details about Rep ID: 6219

Representation ID: 4529

COMMENT LAWSHALL PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dorothy Griggs)

Summary:

The Parish Council has given careful consideration to the content of the document, particularly in the light of the Lawshall Neighbourhood Plan being 'made' in October 2017. Set out below are the Council's specific comments to relevant questions in the consultation document. Given the newness of the Neighbourhood Plan, we would be happy to work with the District Council to identify how the emerging local plan and the adopted Neighbourhood Plan can be integrated to provide a consistent approach across the parish that accords with the local populations wishes, as supported by the Neighbourhood Plan Referendum.

More details about Rep ID: 4529

Representation ID: 3815

OBJECT Mr Julian Manyon

Summary:

My objection is to the paragraph in the Introduction relating to construction of a "Western relief Road" for Sudbury. The back to front logic of the wording suggests that Babergh should seek to alter Sudbury's natural growth to the east and encourage housing and commercial development south west of the town in order to obtain funding for a western bypass. Thus the beautiful landscape enshrined by Gainsborough in "Mr and Mrs Andrews" should be sacrificed in order to build a road which, traffic figures show, does little to help Sudbury. Crazy!

More details about Rep ID: 3815

Representation ID: 3362

COMMENT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Lindsey Parish Council have considered the forward planning document for Babergh and have some comments to make. It is aware of the need for housing and is also aware that we must not be guilty of 'nimby-ism,'. However, growth must be in line with need, as well as service provision, and be in tune with the characteristics of the area.
Regarding the document and its specific questions, not all are pertinent to Lindsey. The responses submitted are, according to the Parish Council, seen as being particularly relevant to Lindsey.

More details about Rep ID: 3362

Representation ID: 3102

COMMENT Mr Clive Harris

Summary:

Safeguarding value in the Local Plan by holding to conditions imposed and obligations agreed.

More details about Rep ID: 3102

Representation ID: 3100

COMMENT Mr Clive Harris

Summary:

Safeguarding value in the local plan when determining applications.

More details about Rep ID: 3100

Representation ID: 731

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

To weigh what Babergh extrapolates as its future population, and compare what is actually achievable, in terms of local employment versus long-distance commuting; which this plan fails to do. The first tasks should be: to decide what social housing can be achieved, and to identify a 'bottom line' for environmental and social safeguards; the process has failed to do this, and has in many ways treated these as afterthoughts.

More details about Rep ID: 731

Representation ID: 705

OBJECT Martyn Levett

Summary:

Your report fails to mention the impact of Brexit on the your projections with all the uncertainties of population, need and employment. What are the contingency plans for a reversal of the projected trends: once the policy is adopted, do you have any ability to change the adopted plan.
Your report constantly refers to a "sustainable basis" which is wholly premised n the speculative assumptions, without any robust tested data, rather than replicated figures from previous reports which are internally inconsistent and erroneous.

More details about Rep ID: 705

Representation ID: 430

SUPPORT RSPB Stour Estuary and Wolves Wood (Mr Mark Nowers)

Summary:

The RSPB supports the intentions to address environmental considerations in this consultation document.

More details about Rep ID: 430

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

Powered by OpusConsult