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) - Key Environmental Issues

Representation ID: 12622

COMMENT Environment Agency (Miss Charlie Christensen)


Although we welcome the inclusion of water quality as a key environmental issue, we would expect to see here reference to wastewater infrastructure. Wastewater infrastructure is the most important pressure on environmental water quality. Growth and development - potential to reduce the efficacy of.... infrastructure leading to major problems
There is no mention of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the requirements and obligations laid out in the Anglian River Basin Management Plan (RBMP).This links to water quality, but also biodiversity and amenity. Overall we would expect to see the WFD considered to a greater extent throughout the Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 12622

Representation ID: 11817

SUPPORT Dedham Vale Society (Mr. David Eking)


The Society is entirely happy to support and applaud your objective under the first bullet point under the Environment to protect and enhance environmental assets.

More details about Rep ID: 11817

Representation ID: 11814

COMMENT Dedham Vale Society (Mr. David Eking)


The comments made by the Society which follow are confined to aspects of the consultation paper which are considered to have a potential impact on the landscape, appearance, buildings or tranquillity of the Dedham Vale AONB (note incorrectly designated on page 11 under Landscape). We consider it is most important to acknowledge that developments immediately proximate to the AONB can be just as damaging to the area as those actually within the designated boundary and should be subject to the same stringent standards. We would also expect the plan explicitly to reaffirm the Council's support for the proposed extension of the AONB to Bures and north towards Sudbury.

More details about Rep ID: 11814

Representation ID: 11239

OBJECT Suffolk Wildlife Trust (Mr James Meyer)


This section should also include reference to Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Ramsar sites and County Wildlife Sites (CWSs). SACs and Ramsar sites are of international nature conservation importance and CWSs are of at least county importance, these designations are present in one or both of the districts and so should be recognised in this section.

As well as designated sites, UK Priority habitats (under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006)) should also be recognised as being considerable assets in the districts. Recognition of these as assets should then be apparent in plan policies.

More details about Rep ID: 11239

Representation ID: 9018

OBJECT Mrs Lynda Shephard


Undesirable and irresponsible to build industrial units off A134 in Long Melford. Would lose beautiful agricultural land which residents in Harefield and villagers currently enjoy and appreciate. This offers a marvellous habitat for many species of birds. In our garden alone we have counted 24, 10 of which are unusual. They all nest here as well. Seems totally inappropriate to consider building industrial units here which will be noisy with transport coming and going, bright security lights and ruining the spectacular country views we currently enjoy. Plenty of unoccupied business units already nearby

More details about Rep ID: 9018

Representation ID: 8551

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


We welcome the Councils' commitment to the strategic mitigation plan currently under development for recreational impacts of new housing developments on internationally-designated sites, known as the Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).

Alongside the RAMS, we consider that the key means to avoid increasing pressure on designated sites will be through provision of high quality green space close to people's homes and at a scale that is appropriate to the level of planned growth. This should be wildlife rich green space, again in line with the Council's biodiversity duties.

More details about Rep ID: 8551

Representation ID: 7824

COMMENT Mrs Sarah Knibbs


A coherent 20 year plan will ensure that the environment is protected - maintaining what we have and planning for improvement where required.
The impacts of climate change will affect our coastline and flood plains. Any construction within or adjacent to these areas should be avoided.
The road systems require significant work if they are to manage increased traffic movements and help to improve air quality.

More details about Rep ID: 7824

Representation ID: 6656

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell


BDC already have adequate environmental policies, but the planning department dosn't apply them robustly.
BDC also have the duty devolved from Natural England to ensure Biodiversity issues are enforced, they have failed to do that robustly.
SLA's are under consideration but are perfectly applicable, if applied robustly.
But in the case of Wolsey Grange they apparently were turned inside out so the inside of the development looked nice but its perimeter was ringed by three story flats which will present like alcatraz on the hill top of Chantry Vale. This is not robust application of policy.

More details about Rep ID: 6656

Representation ID: 6230

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)


Please see revised text in our submission

More details about Rep ID: 6230

Representation ID: 5880

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)


You have omitted to give the number of Conservation Areas in Mid Suffolk.

More details about Rep ID: 5880

Representation ID: 5510

COMMENT Mr Colin Johnston


Babergh contains a large number of SLAs (not mentioned) which point up the natural diversity and beauty of the rural areas. Conservation areas were considered for many more villages and these should be brought forward for action: such areas containing both the best of the built up and natural assets would help focus communities on what is important to them while, at the same time, giving the tourist industry a boost, by presenting Suffolk at its best.

More details about Rep ID: 5510

Representation ID: 4155



Surely what attracts people to this area is its natural beauty ,the farmland the rivers ,wildlife to lose this to a huge housing development would be unthinkable and have a huge impact on the environment , I have lived in Sproughton for 10 years and have seen Barn owls , foxes, deer Buzzards kestrels numerous smaller birds to lose their habitat would be criminal , I understand the need for housing but surely more suitable brown field sites could be used rather than the wonderful Chantry vale and surrounding areas

More details about Rep ID: 4155

Representation ID: 3323

COMMENT Janet Weavers


The environment (green spaces, recreational areas, wildlife habitat etc) must be protected and enhanced. If people are to be encouraged to be more healthy then easily accessible open areas must be provided - it's counter-productive to make people use their cars to access recreation/wildlife areas. The general landscape must also be protected so that we do not lose the distinctiveness of our Suffolk countryside. Sprawl is not good. "Dumping" is not good - we had that in the 70s. Once gone, our special tourist-attracting landscape is gone forever.

More details about Rep ID: 3323

Representation ID: 3315

COMMENT mr k j white


The drive for housing at all costs (presumed consent) is certain to have a negative impact on the protection of our rural environment, viz heritage assets; landscapes; and biodiversity in wildlife and flora. Being involved in conservation, heritage and the natural environment in both my private and professional life, with few exceptions I see little to praise in the current protection given to these areas all of which enhance the quality of our lives. Any further erosion in the planning processes will irreversibly damage the rural environment and the heritage treasures it holds for posterity.

More details about Rep ID: 3315

Representation ID: 3279

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


The RSPB considers it is essential that the Council undertakes an exercise to map the network of designated sites, priority habitats and species across the District and that this map is presented as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan in preparation.

We commend Ipswich Borough Council's "Ipswich Wildlife Network" (https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ipswich_wildlife_network.pdf) and in accordance with the Duty to Co-operate, would urge Babergh to undertake a similar exercise. This would accord with paragraph 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework which says that local planning authorites should plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 3279

Representation ID: 2924

COMMENT Mr Peter Sutters


Air quality along the A12/A14 corridors can be poor at times - it is most desirable to maintain a quasi Green Belt/ Green Lung around the A12/A14 corridors o protect settlements from pollution.

More details about Rep ID: 2924

Representation ID: 2820

COMMENT Mr Andrew Coxhead


Development of land must take into account Environmental Impact.

More details about Rep ID: 2820

Representation ID: 1563

COMMENT Ms Carole Skippen


it is very important to remember that climate change will affect all of us, more importantly the Strand and along the peninsular and along the Wherstead Road are already affected by flooding especially at very high tides. To build on, or near, areas which are all ready affected by flooding does not make any sense. To build on Land between Bourne Hill and the A137 will cause increased risk of flooding and also with surface water and sewerage.

More details about Rep ID: 1563

Representation ID: 1086

COMMENT Mr Graham Shorrock


Much of the environmental attractiveness of the districts is not only attributable to the landscape but also to the many hamlets and villages that are within the area. In considering housing development it is vital that theses are not compromised by developments that merge villages together without maintaining adequate green spaces between the towns and villages.

More details about Rep ID: 1086

Representation ID: 734

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group


Environmental Assets and Biodiversity: We do not doubt that many such areas of priority habitat etc have been recorded, though not all have a system of protection is in place. Lack of a green strategy on the part of the bodies consulted, means that important urban fringe sites are overlooked. Our contention is that given the new future development scenarios, all areas facing extensive development need an independent appraisal.

More details about Rep ID: 734

Representation ID: 18

COMMENT Mr Michael Morley


Mid Suffolk has some of the finest and most productive agricultural land in the country and it is vital that housing development should only be approved on lower grade land.

More details about Rep ID: 18

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

Powered by OpusConsult