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) - Sudbury

Representation ID: 11957

COMMENT The Sudbury Society (Mr Stephen Thorpe)

Summary:

Concerned over continuing expansion of the town away from the historic town centre and the impact on the latter. Need good frequent town services with properly accessible buses. There is a need to reduce impact of parking on Market Hill / Old Market Place. Means of getting to / from the rail station other than by car need to be addressed. Local Plan Alteration no2 (2006) particularly Ch9 Transport and Ch10 Sudbury should be incorporated where applicable. Should the bypass/relief road, and consequent development around Ballingdon Hill as set out in the Strategic Outline Business Case, be taken into account?

More details about Rep ID: 11957

Representation ID: 11851

COMMENT Cornard Tye Residents Association (Mr. Michael Evans)

Summary:

Sudbury should concentrate on its cultural heritage status and the proximity of the medieval villages such as Lavenham and Long Melford to encourage tourism and related businesses (which would be harmed by excessive development). The birthplace of Thomas Gainsborough and the few recognisable local views he depicted must be preserved as a potential attractions for the future.

More details about Rep ID: 11851

Representation ID: 11104

OBJECT Catesby Estates Limited represented by Strutt & Parker LLP (Jen Carroll)

Summary:

We do not support the proposed settlement boundary to Sudbury town. The proposed settlement boundary does not acknowledge the previous local plan allocations of land north of Waldingfield Road, an area of land previously considered suitable and capable of delivering additional new homes to Sudbury and Babergh District and now subject to an acceptable outline application for development.

More details about Rep ID: 11104

Representation ID: 10839

OBJECT Mr AWR Lockhart

Summary:

With the existing housing and industrial development in the general area of Sudbury and Great Cornard and future development areas to be completed, the Local Plan proposals are unsustainable. The area is being swamped with development to such an extent that the character of the market town and surrounding villages are being systematically destroyed.

More details about Rep ID: 10839

Representation ID: 10186

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

It would be more beneficial if the site allocations making up Chilton Woods urban extension were brought forward within a comprehensive framework rather than in a piecemeal approach. This will ensure the development is properly integrated into the existing settlement and will improve place-making potential. It is therefore
advised that any forthcoming policy reference the need for a master planning or
design framework as a requirement.

More details about Rep ID: 10186

Representation ID: 10174

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

If brought forward the site allocations being considered for Sudbury would result in a
substantial urban extension. Some of the sites to the north of Sudbury have been
previously considered for development already and were the subject of an application for outline planning permission.

If these sites are to be brought forward as part of the site allocation process it must
be demonstrated that the historic environment, the high quality heritage assets and
their settings, as well as the potential for undiscovered heritage assets in the form of
archaeology, has been considered in the allocation process. Any subsequent policies
should make explicit reference to the presence of these heritage assets and the need
to have regard for their settings. Any mitigation measures required, relating to
building heights, landscaping, position of open space/buffer zones, master-planning
etc. should be outlined within the policy itself.

More details about Rep ID: 10174

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

Powered by OpusConsult