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) - Sproughton

Representation ID: 13264

OBJECT Mr Christopher Sturdy

Summary:

I would hereby wish to lodge my response to the above being without contempt or prejudice thereof:-
I would wish to state my position as a discontent at this moment in time as obviously there are many questions to be answered about same, but remain open minded about necessary development for all, ecologically delivered to those who receive it!

More details about Rep ID: 13264

Representation ID: 13248

COMMENT Button Farms Ltd represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

We believe that development to the west of the settlement is the most sustainable option, and our clients site should be considered appropriate for allocation within the settlement boundary.

The allocation of this suitable and deliverable site will make a significant contribution to the Districts housing need and is located within the Ipswich Fringe Area which is the preferred option for growth and the delivery of housing in the District. The sites location within the fringe area and nearby Ipswich further supports the sustainability of the site with regards to employment and key services in which public transport facilities are already in place.
The application site is of a size where it could deliver a considerable level of housing and commercial development meeting a significant unmet local need with regard to the mix of dwellings as well as affordable housing in line with the Councils requirements and smaller employment uses which cannot be delivered in other larger employment allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 13248

Representation ID: 13141

OBJECT Mrs L J Cattermole

Summary:

Why are Babergh proposing to build over 2000 houses around Bramford and Sproughton? Why single these two villages out? This is far too many houses for Bramford and Sproughton and should be spread out across more parishes.

The roads are already congested enough particularly at peak times and when the A14 or the Orwell bridge are dosed. Where will the extra school places come from, accessible healthcare i.e doctors' surgeries, shops etc?

I have no objection to small developments in and around the village but definitely not the numbers proposed and I do not want Sproughton to be absorbed to become a suburb of Ipswich!
I came to the village over 40 years ago specifically because it was/is a village.

PLEASE LET US KEEP IT THAT WAY.

More details about Rep ID: 13141

Representation ID: 13007

OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

With respect to Sproughton, 8 sites have been identified in total (6 for housing and 2 for employment). These essentially cover most of the Chantry Vale (Wolsey Grange to the River Gipping), the old Sugar Beet site, and developments along the Loraine Way meeting up with Bramford. Sproughton would merge with Ipswich and on the other side Bramford - creeping coalescence should be avoided

More details about Rep ID: 13007

Representation ID: 12775

OBJECT Mr Gary Clark

Summary:

* The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310 (total obtained by adding up the number of house per site as per the 'Sites Submitted' document. This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it. A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes - this is more simplisitic as the JLP states but some tweaking could be done where appropriate. This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising one parish in particular to the extent that it would be abosrobed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford.

More details about Rep ID: 12775

Representation ID: 12719

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed however, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc. the 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. This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. . It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been.

More details about Rep ID: 12719

Representation ID: 12629

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310 ,(This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it.
* A better approach would be to pro-rata the allocation across all parishes -This would allow settlements to grow in a more organic way without penalising Sproughton to the extent that it would be abosrobed into Ipswich and merge with Bramford.
It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach

More details about Rep ID: 12629

Representation ID: 11384

COMMENT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* The number of houses proposed for Sproughton is 2,310 (total obtained by adding up the number of house per site as per the 'Sites Submitted' document. This is a disproportionate amount of housing for Sproughton. If the net OAN is 4,210 then Sproughton has 55% of the house required allocated to it.

More details about Rep ID: 11384

Representation ID: 11264

OBJECT Suffolk Wildlife Trust (Mr James Meyer)

Summary:

Combined with the Pinewood sites (SS0126, SS0191, SS0299 and SS1024) sites SS0721 and SS1023 represent a large block of land which is likely to contain species and/or habitats of nature conservation interest. Further assessment is therefore required to determine whether development in this location is likely to result in any adverse ecological impacts.

More details about Rep ID: 11264

Representation ID: 11156

OBJECT Mr James Flatman

Summary:

My main concerns are:

Infrastructure

Lack of amenities e.g.. buses
post office
schooling
doctors

Environment.. air pollution, especially at the junction of the Wild Man Public House .

Traffic- always badly congested at peak times and incidents occurring on the A14/Orwell Bridge/Copdock Interchange.

I am concerned that the scale of the proposed development will result in our village being swallowed up by Ipswich and in so doing destroy the beauty and character of our lovely village.

More details about Rep ID: 11156

Representation ID: 11106

OBJECT Jo Wood

Summary:

I find the proposal to increase houses within Sproughton to over 2,000 over the next few years almost impossible to believe. I haven't seen any proposals to enhance the road infrastructure to accommodate such a development, and I can't even begin to imagine what impact this will have on our local schools and GP/dental surgeries. I would urge you please to consider these issues as a priority. In my view, the village simply can't accommodate the level of development that is being proposed.

More details about Rep ID: 11106

Representation ID: 11009

OBJECT Sarah Missing

Summary:

Scale of development will result in village being absorbed by Ipswich.
Traffic has been serious issue, terrible congestion on daily basis.
Impact of increased traffic will have effect on environment.
Losing natural flood plains will create flooding risks.
Lack of amenities/infrastructure (health, education, transport) for increase in population.
All villages should share housing need - suggested 397% increase will overwhelm.
New housing should give affordable housing to village children and bungalows/accessible housing for elderly.
This considered approach across county would be more acceptable to many.
Villages can keep identity but address future needs of community.

More details about Rep ID: 11009

Representation ID: 10707

OBJECT Mrs Janet Flatman

Summary:

My main concerns are:

Infrastructure

Lack of amenities e.g.. buses
post office
schooling
doctors

Environment.. air pollution, especially at the junction of the Wild Man Public House .

Traffic- always badly congested at peak times and incidents occurring on the A14/Orwell Bridge/Copdock Interchange.

I am concerned that the scale of the proposed development will result in our village being swallowed up by Ipswich and in so doing destroy the beauty and character of our lovely village.

More details about Rep ID: 10707

Representation ID: 10596

OBJECT Martin Howard and 3 others

Summary:

We would like to make the following representation re housing development in the Sproughton area:
- road links would need to be massively improved.
- sewage systems cannot cope properly so will need huge improvements.
- new builds should be affordable for starter home buyers or bungalows for elderly and should infill small areas and not cause villages to run in to each other.
- Gipping valley is area of outstanding natural beauty and should not be interfered with.
- Allotments should not be removed.
- Traffic on Church Lane due to school and schools full.
- Doctors surgeries struggling.

More details about Rep ID: 10596

Representation ID: 10578

OBJECT Mr and Mrs Sillett

Summary:

Proposed number of houses for Sproughton is way too many.
Understand need for more family homes but growth location should be evened out across Babergh so there are more smaller sites instead of large ones.
Hundreds of extra houses would cause chaos to the small roads.
Roads are always extremely busy and cannot cope.
Smaller development of 50 or so houses could have lower impact on community infrastructure, encourage small builders with individual looking houses which would compliment beautiful village.
River walks and landscapes should be preserved as fresh air, exercise and green area enjoyment helps health.

More details about Rep ID: 10578

Representation ID: 10526

OBJECT Mr john barratt

Summary:

Sproughton village currently has around 581 dwellings, and would appear to have had 2300+ houses (55% of OAN) allocated to it. This is an increase in the region of 397%! This is clearly what would be far too many houses crammed into what is really only a relatively small area. This is clearly disproportionate for the area and would result in the village losing its identity or even its existence, and with 'creeping coalescence' simply become part of Ipswich with Bramford (similar to Kesgrave and Rushmere St. Andrew). Infrastructure would not be able to cope with this increase. It barely copes at present. A14 or A12 closure bring the whole of Ipswich to a grinding halt.

More details about Rep ID: 10526

Representation ID: 10478

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich in the same way that Kesgrave and Rushmere-St- Andrew has been. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

More details about Rep ID: 10478

Representation ID: 10304

OBJECT Keith Barwick

Summary:

Because of the geographical situation of Sproughton with the A14 road the river Gipping and the railway line running through the village it would be extremely difficult ,ni-on impossible to improve the road infrastructure ,to cope with further development traffic .Areas with better road systems must be considered first for development and not prime agricultural greenfield sites with poor road systems.

More details about Rep ID: 10304

Representation ID: 9960

OBJECT Julie Brown

Summary:

WE HAVE A SMALL VILLAGE SCHOOL, NO DOCTORS SURGERY, NO POST OFFICE . WE HAVE A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY VILLAGE SHOP, BECAUSE WE WANT TO STAY A SMALL VILLAGE. THE BUS SERVICE IS NOT VERY GOOD AND WE ARE A BYPASS VILLAGE FOR SO MANY NOT SPROUGHTON RESIDENTS THAT BRINGING EXTRA PEOPLE , CARS, HOUSES WILL EVENTUALLY BRING OUR VILLAGE TO A STAND STILL

More details about Rep ID: 9960

Representation ID: 9959

OBJECT Julie Brown

Summary:

My name is Julie Brown and I am a resident of Sproughton village , yes I said village because that is what it is and myself and other residents want it to stay that way. I made a decision that when I got married I would live in a village (probably the rest of my life). I am no snob, however I have never wanted to live in a town and never will.

I live on one of the busiest junctions used in Suffolk, outside the Wild Man House. Difficult to join the road. Speeding on the road. 2000 plus houses will be in excess of 4000 cars joining this junction. Dangerous for cyclists and runners.

More details about Rep ID: 9959

Representation ID: 8731

SUPPORT Bidwells (Mr. Jake Nugent)

Summary:

[On behalf of Trinity College]
An additional Site is proposed for residential development in order to support the Local Planning Authorities in meeting their Objectively Assessed Housing Need and in supporting the wider Ipswich Economic Area as part of the Ipswich Urban Fringe.

Details of the proposed allocation are provided within the attached documents.

More details about Rep ID: 8731

Representation ID: 7900

OBJECT mrs Jacqueline Palmer

Summary:

The amount of housing being proposed for Sproughton is not viable. The sewage system will not take any more houses, Binder are often in Church Lane emptying the pumping station. The roads will not be able to cope, if there is a problem on the Orwell Bridge or Copdock Interchange our village is congested often for hours, There will be a problem with school, Doctors, and other public services. I chose to live in Sproughton as it was a village,the housing that is being proposed will make Sproughton merge with Ipswich and Bramford, no longer a village.

More details about Rep ID: 7900

Representation ID: 6791

OBJECT Dr John Webb

Summary:

Sproughton's suggested housing allocation is totally impracticable as the road network is struggling to cater for the present population even when the Orwell Bridge is not blocked (in which case Sproughton and its surroundings comes to a complete stop). There should be no further development until AFTER there have been MAJOR improvements to the road system. Past experience has shown that promised improvements usually fail to materialise.

Sewage system is overloaded.

Doctors' surgeries in the area are already overloaded and Sproughton School is full to bursting point.

If the developments currently suggested take place it would destroy Sproughton as a community, meanwhile a lot of rich builders would get a lot richer, while the present residents of Sproughton will get a lot poorer as a result of devaluation of their houses.

More details about Rep ID: 6791

Representation ID: 6536

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

No further sites in the Parish of Sproughton

More details about Rep ID: 6536

Representation ID: 6524

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

SS1024 SS1023 Both effectively merge Ipswich with Sproughton. Massive impact on important green and open space of Chantry Vale/Gipping Valley, wide ranging biodiversity.
SS0711 SS0223 creeping coalescence towards Bramford.
The developments suggested for Sproughton could see increase of 400% in village size and see it effectively swallowed up by Ipswich. Schools, roads and health service are already strained.
This village should not be sacrificed to accommodate over 50% of Babergh's total development plan - this should be spread evenly throughout the district or a separate community established.

More details about Rep ID: 6524

Representation ID: 5526

OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

SS1024 SS1023 Both effectively merge Ipswich with Sproughton. Massive impact on important green and open space of Chantry Vale/Gipping Valley, wide ranging biodiversity.
SS0711 SS0223 creeping coalescence towards Bramford.
The developments suggested for Sproughton could see increase of 400% in village size and see it effectively swallowed up by Ipswich. Schools, roads and health service are already strained.
This village should not be sacrificed to accommodate over 50% of Babergh's total development plan - this should be spread evenly throughout the district or a separate community established.

More details about Rep ID: 5526

Representation ID: 3142

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Webb

Summary:

SS0721 is a large site that definitely could have housing included with the proposed retail building.
SS1026, SS0191 SS0299 all provide good sites for development

SS0711 is a flood risk and by river provides outstanding beauty so no to development, SS0223 is a village amenity used by lots and would be a great loss to area so no to development

More details about Rep ID: 3142

Representation ID: 3021

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

The sites ss1024,ss1023, ss 0191 should not be developed this is a particularly attractive landscape and at the moment spatially separating Ipswich from Sproughton.

More details about Rep ID: 3021

Representation ID: 1323

OBJECT Mr M.J. Earey

Summary:

I am convinced that Sproughton will unfortunately eventually be swallowed by the expansion of the Ipswich fringe.

The Gipping valley, with its flood plain, should be retained as a green open space with any expanded greater Ipswich area. If any development is allowed, then I propose another river crossing to:
relieve overloaded roads through Sproughton/Bramford
to take all the extra traffic generated by temporary closures of the A14, and additional traffic generated by proposed sites.

Sketch showing possible river crossing.

Traffic and environment are just two elements of infrastructure which should be sorted out before any additional housing schemes are considered.

More details about Rep ID: 1323

Representation ID: 1208

OBJECT K & L Baalham

Summary:

Unfair that one area to have such an increase in development - 30% of district total

Our small village suffers from major traffic congestion. We are a short-cut to the A12/A14. High Street, Lower Street and Loraine Way all converge, with the addition of parked cars, to make this area constantly busy. Rush hour traffic to Hadleigh is horrendous, made worse with A14 hold-ups. Parking issues near school. Consideration must be made for future additional vehicles.

Small developments favourable as there would be a lesser impact.

Please save our countryside, as we are not a town and do not wish to be one.

More details about Rep ID: 1208

Representation ID: 429

OBJECT Mr Andy Day

Summary:

The proposals would have a devastating impact on the lives of myself, my wife and my only neighbour. The amount of traffic we already see use Hadleigh Road is phenomenal and the impact on our rural lives would be devastating.
The impact on the local wildlife would also be devastating to see kestrels, Buzzards, Barn owls and numerous other garden birds along with deer foxes etc is truly wonderful and something that we all should experience. I understand the need for more housing but a scheme of such huge proportions would surely be too much for such an already traffic congested area could possibly cope with.

More details about Rep ID: 429

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

Powered by OpusConsult