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) - Q5A (p16)

Representation ID: 13216

COMMENT Building Partnerships Ltd represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)

Summary:

The Joint Local Plan should identify how it has been influenced by other factors such as the need to accommodate unmet need from elsewhere, in particular housing need which cannot be met within Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 13216

Representation ID: 13209

COMMENT A R Hall & Sons represented by Savills (Mr William Lusty)

Summary:

We welcome that the Councils are taking steps to ensure for close working between the two local authorities with partnerships and neighbouring authorities under the 'Duty to Co-operate' bound upon the Council by the Localism Act of 2011. Clearly, this is a very important aspect of developing a new Local Plan and in doing so, the Council must ensure that sufficient growth is planned for within Suffolk Coastal, to account for housing requirements arising across boundaries with neighbouring authorities.

More details about Rep ID: 13209

Representation ID: 13152

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

Summary:

We agree withy the identified key issues for compliance within the Duty to Cooperate for the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Plan. We have some concerns over the regard to the policy mechanisms should any one authority in the HMA not be able to meet their housing needs. There may be other authorities, including London (GLA) who are unable to meet their housing need targets and this may have wider housing implications on housing numbers within the Districts - this will need to be considered when determining the OAN. Urge the Councils to provide policy mechanisms to deal with neighbouring authorities' unmet housing need during the next stage for their emerging Local Plan. Imperative unmet housing need is identified prior to the emerging Local Plan progressing further. Site allocations should consider Ipswich's unmet need, and the ability of sites abutting Ipswich to accommodate this need.

More details about Rep ID: 13152

Representation ID: 13139

OBJECT Mrs L J Cattermole

Summary:

why is Babergh having to find all 4000 houses that Ipswich needs?

More details about Rep ID: 13139

Representation ID: 13132

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

Summary:

We welcome that the Councils are taking steps to ensure for close working between the two local authorities with partnerships and neighbouring authorities under the 'Duty to Co-operate' bound upon the Council by the Localism Act of 2011. Clearly, this is a very important aspect of developing a new Local Plan and in doing so, the Council must ensure that sufficient growth is planned for within Suffolk Coastal, to account for housing requirements arising across boundaries with neighbouring authorities

More details about Rep ID: 13132

Representation ID: 13109

COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)

Summary:

Agree that the authorities which make up the Ipswich HMA need to be partners when defining the functional economic market area and objectively assessed need (number 4 in the table), but also suggest that Waveney District Council is also included in this section.

More details about Rep ID: 13109

Representation ID: 12984

COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

The key planning issues are supported, although the level of detail explained could be improved. For example, under infrastructure provision, there is reference to the provision and enhancement of strategic infrastructure improvements without quantifying the type of strategic infrastructure being referred to. Similarly, environmental protection refers to the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment without mentioning the need to address climate change mitigation.

More details about Rep ID: 12984

Representation ID: 12912

OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

The framework of the JLP is to cherry pick the NPPF and to ignore not only the letter of that document but also its spirit of a bottom up process based on local involvement at the community level.

More details about Rep ID: 12912

Representation ID: 12850

COMMENT Tidal Hill Limited represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

Between them the Planning Authorities of the HMA have clearly defined common challenges, objectives and Issues requiring resolution. We would therefore expect to see a mutual approach towards strategy-setting and plan-making. In responding to this question, then, we consider it important to cross-refer to the approach adopted by Suffolk Coastal within their ongoing and parallel Issues & Options Consultation and the way in which they are interpreting what is in part a shared evidence base.

More details about Rep ID: 12850

Representation ID: 12736

COMMENT Building Partnerships Ltd. represented by La Ronde Wright Limited (Mrs Nicole Wright)

Summary:

The Joint Local Plan should identify how it has been influenced by other factors such as the need to accommodate unmet need from elsewhere, in particular housing need which cannot be met within Ipswich.

More details about Rep ID: 12736

Representation ID: 12648

OBJECT Mr Bryan Fawcett

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 12648

Representation ID: 12578

OBJECT Mr Alastair Powell

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.
* Why have Fringe Parishes been excluded from the Ipswich Fringe Policy Forum. Duty to Cooperate is under NPPF supposed to go down through the government hierarchy not just sideways and up. This surely is a massive failing the imposition of the consiquences unacceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 12578

Representation ID: 12455

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

Summary:

Appear that the Councils have co-operated with their neighbouring authorities and statutory bodies on the key strategic and cross boundary issues and have mechanisms in place to support such co-operation in future. We are concerned with regard to the policy mechanisms should any one authority in the HMA not be able to meet their housing needs. There may be other authorities, including London (GLA) who are unable to meet their housing need targets and this may have wider housing implications on housing numbers. They will need to be considered when determining OAN. Particular concerns especially given that Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal have stated in their emerging Local Plan that they have a combined quantity of 4,776 dwellings to be delivered on land not currently identified. We would urge the Councils to provide policy mechanisms to deal with neighbouring authorities' unmet housing need. Should consider Ipswich's unmet need in site allocations.

More details about Rep ID: 12455

Representation ID: 12301

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

Summary:

Appear that the Councils have co-operated with their neighbouring authorities and statutory bodies on the key strategic and cross boundary issues and have mechanisms in place to support such co-operation in future. We agree with the identified key issues for compliance within the Duty to Co-operate. The only aspect of co-operation we have some concerns over is with regard to the policy mechanisms should any one authority in the HMA not be able to meet their housing need. Unmet needs of other authorities, including London (GLA) will need to be considered when determining Babergh and Mid Suffolk's OAN. We raise particular concerns, especially given that Ipswich Borough Council and Suffolk Coastal have stated a combined quantity of 4,776 dwellings to be delivered on land not currently identified.

More details about Rep ID: 12301

Representation ID: 12248

COMMENT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)

Summary:

'Defining housing market area and objectively assessed need' is supported. It will require a new, much simplified and shorter document to set out the new OAN on which to base the Local Plan. Further comments are given under 'housing' in Q7 below.

More details about Rep ID: 12248

Representation ID: 12095

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

Not simply an issue of consultation but a question of effective cooperation. Proposed approach of a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2016 is broadly supported. Aim should be to reach a final position whereby plans are in place to provide the land and infrastructure necessary to support current and projected future levels of development. Need to positively plan to meet full housing needs across housing market areas should not be underestimated. The extent to which a plan tackles strategic priorities that arise from that strategic cross-boundary working and its associated evidence base are issues to be explored and considered from an early stage in the plan making process and ultimately in assessing the soundness of the Local Plan. Scale of new growth that is required to shape the future of the area will require the consideration of a range of different delivery options, including across local authority boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 12095

Representation ID: 12025

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

Summary:

Housing provision is a key matter that requires close co-operation with other local
authorities on, particularly, with regard to strategic sized sites. Transport,
employment, retail and leisure needs all have implications that go beyond specific
local authority borders. Whilst key evidence sharing amongst neighbouring is to be
welcomed, the Joint Local Plan will need to be able to identify clear decisions and
definitive outcomes arising from its duty-to-co-operate activities.

we have not been able to find any references in the
Babergh / Mid Suffolk evidence base documents regarding the process for identifying
and addressing any specific level of unmet housing need from Ipswich. Quite
evidently, moving forward in the Plan making process, Babergh and Mid Suffolk
District Councils will need to demonstrate that they have properly taken on board any
requirement to help address Ipswich's unmet housing needs, given the constrained
nature of the tightly drawn Ipswich Borough boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 12025

Representation ID: 11887

COMMENT Turley (Mr Gareth Barton)

Summary:

We agree with the key planning issues identified for housing in relation to complying with the Duty-to-Cooperate. It is essential that the Local Plan is prepared alongside other development plan documents being advanced by neighbouring authorities. A particular emphasis should be placed on ensuring that the Local Plan proactively helps to accommodate the level of growth required in the wider Ipswich HMA.

More details about Rep ID: 11887

Representation ID: 11749

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Duty to Cooperate
*Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 11749

Representation ID: 11662

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Environment protection section needs to include another statutory consultee namely Historic Gardens Trust which is statutory consultee for historic parks and gardens as well as Heritage England.
I consider also that it is very important for BDC to cooperate closely with parish councils where the parish council has expressed a wish to be involved on development proposals in its parish, especially with regard to planning obligations and Section 106 provisions.

More details about Rep ID: 11662

Representation ID: 11657

COMMENT Haughley Park Consortium represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

It is recognised that housing, employment and environmental protection (including the historic environment), are included as key planning issues. This is agreed.

It is imperative that the Councils' unmet housing need is identified prior to the emerging Local Plan progressing further. This should include unmet need from other neighbouring authorities.

More details about Rep ID: 11657

Representation ID: 11625

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

Summary:

Whilst key evidence sharing amongst neighbouring is to be welcomed, the Joint Local Plan will need to be able to identify clear decisions and definitive outcomes arising from its duty-to-co-operate activities.

We have not been able to find any references regarding the process for identifying and addressing any specific level of unmet housing need from Ipswich. Quite evidently, moving forward in the Plan making process, the Councils will need to demonstrate they have properly taken on board any requirement to help address Ipswich's unmet housing needs, given the constrained nature of the tightly drawn Ipswich Borough boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 11625

Representation ID: 11537

COMMENT Annette Powell

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.
* Why have Fringe Parishes been excluded from the Ipswich Fringe Policy Forum. Duty to Cooperate is under NPPF supposed to go down through the government hierarchy not just sideways and up. This surely is a massive failing the imposition of the consiquences unacceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 11537

Representation ID: 11354

SUPPORT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

We agree, in general, but hope that the placing of "Environmental Protection" as Issue No. 9 does not suggest that it is an "also ran".

More details about Rep ID: 11354

Representation ID: 11320

OBJECT Sproughton Playing Field (Damian Lavington)

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill.
* In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 11320

Representation ID: 11317

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

Summary:

We welcome that the Councils are taking steps to ensure for close working between the two local authorities with partnerships and neighbouring authorities under the 'Duty to Co-operate' bound upon the Council by the Localism Act of 2011. Clearly, this is a very important aspect of developing a new Local Plan and in doing so, the Council must ensure that sufficient growth is planned for within Suffolk Coastal, to account for housing requirements arising across boundaries with neighbouring authorities.

More details about Rep ID: 11317

Representation ID: 11243

COMMENT Suffolk Wildlife Trust (Mr James Meyer)

Summary:

The Duty-to-Cooperate should extend to non-statutory consultees (such as nature conservation organisations local groups) who can provide local knowledge and help deliver solutions to issues on the ground. This will help ensure that issues are tackled in the best way possible.

More details about Rep ID: 11243

Representation ID: 11160

SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

Agree - East Anglia is a relatively cheap place to live in Southern England and transport links to London, Birmingham and other major cities need to be improved. It should be noted that this could push the price for properties up and there is still a need to keep properties affordable for local residents.

More details about Rep ID: 11160

Representation ID: 11088

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

Summary:

Babergh and Mid Suffolk need to plan to meet Ipswich's unmet need. Given Ipswich's restrictive
administrative boundary it is unlikely Ipswich will be able to meet this need within its boundary, as
such Babergh and Mid Suffolk must plan to meet this unmet need.

More details about Rep ID: 11088

Representation ID: 10984

SUPPORT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council notes that the Duty-to-Cooperate is a legal obligation and agrees with the identified key issues for compliance.

More details about Rep ID: 10984

Representation ID: 10940

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

Summary:

The framework of the JLP is to cherry pick the NPPF and to ignore not only the letter of that document but also its spirit of a bottom up process based on local involvement at the community level.

It is not clear where authority is derived to ignore the NPPF as a whole. Many sections reference paragraph 156 of the NPPF, leapfrogging the need to; 'reflect the vision and aspirations of local communities' (para 150), 'be consistent with the principles and policies set out in this Framework' (para 151), 'Early and meaningful engagement and collaborations with neighbourhoods' (para 155). By starting at 156 the need to engage and involve local communities is not fully addressed. The current consultation is not a substitute for proper engagement.

More details about Rep ID: 10940

Representation ID: 10890

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by Strutt & Parker (Sam Hollingworth)

Summary:

Need for the Councils to work positively with neighbouring authorities, particularly those that are within the same housing market area, as per the NPPF. Particularly pertinent to the JLP, given that the main centre within the administrative boundary of the main centre of the housing market area is tightly drawn around the existing settlement.

The JLP must consider whether a proportion of Ipswich's (as well as other authorities with the housing market area) housing needs need to, and can sustainably met through, development within Babergh and/or Mid Suffolk Districts. The matter of housing supply needs to take account of the primary role of Ipswich within the sub-region, unmet need, and the alignment of local plans.

More details about Rep ID: 10890

Representation ID: 10756

SUPPORT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 10756

Representation ID: 10611

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Do not agree

More details about Rep ID: 10611

Representation ID: 10602

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 10602

Representation ID: 10538

OBJECT Alison Barratt

Summary:

I fully understand that more housing is urgently required throughout the UK, and that Boroughs/ Councils have been allocated certain quota's that have to be fulfilled within certain time frames. Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate the Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings. Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 10538

Representation ID: 10524

OBJECT Mr john barratt

Summary:

I fully understand that more housing is urgently required throughout the UK, and that Boroughs/ Councils have been allocated certain quota's that have to be fulfilled within certain time frames. Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate the Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings. Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 10524

Representation ID: 10519

OBJECT Mr Joe Lavington

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill.
* In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 10519

Representation ID: 10409

OBJECT Wendy Lavington

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill.
* In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 10409

Representation ID: 10057

SUPPORT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

Agree. We are pleased to see that the conservation and enhancement of the historic
environment is identified as a key planning issue and a strategic duty-to-cooperate
priority in line with paragraph 156 of the NPPF. We are also pleased to see that
Historic England is listed as a partner.

More details about Rep ID: 10057

Representation ID: 9981

OBJECT Charlotte Lavington

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill.
* In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 9981

Representation ID: 9807

COMMENT Merton College, Oxford represented by Savills (Mr James Yeoman)

Summary:

Our client acknowledges the Councils' efforts to engage with surrounding authorities in order to seek fulfilment of the Duty to Co-operate.

It is agreed that defining the housing market area and objectively assessed need is a key area. We agree that the highlighted partners must be engaged in this process. We agree that resolving any unmet housing need, confirming the approach to delivery of the housing requirement, and weighing up any impact(s) of bordering strategic housing developments is also a key topic relevant to the Duty to Co-operate.

At this stage we reserve specific comment on this matter until the Joint Local Plan is at a more advanced stage and where the Duty to Co-operate can be properly considered in the context of agreed OAN.

More details about Rep ID: 9807

Representation ID: 9691

SUPPORT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

I agree with the strategic polices listed (1-5) on page 14. However, it is the responsibility of the Council to ensure that there is full compliance with the Duty to Co-operate.

More details about Rep ID: 9691

Representation ID: 9513

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

Neither agree or disagree. Too many so called consultative bodies have no local or regional democratic mandate and no real understanding of local issues: - New Anglia LEP and Highways England to name but two!

More details about Rep ID: 9513

Representation ID: 9421

SUPPORT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Agree. East Anglia is a growth region and planning needs to co-ordinated over a wide area.

More details about Rep ID: 9421

Representation ID: 8928

COMMENT Andrew Searle

Summary:

All co-operation itemised is upwards - none is shown downwards to community or neighbourhoods

More details about Rep ID: 8928

Representation ID: 8732

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

All valid for a large-scale challenge that crosses borders. Possibly complement this with a focus on employment (hence houses) deliverable across the districts, minimising cross-border complexity

More details about Rep ID: 8732

Representation ID: 8027

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

Summary:

The RSPB welcomes that the "conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment" is identified as a key planning issue within the Duty to Co-operate.

We welcome the opportunity to work with the Council(s), partners and stakeholders in meeting these requirements.

The RSPB has considerable land-holdings within the District (Wolves Wood, Flatford, Stour Estuary) and extensive knowledge of the ecological sensitivities and priorities. We are happy to work with the Council to share this knowledge so that species and habitats can be enhanced.

More details about Rep ID: 8027

Representation ID: 8019

COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)

Summary:

ECC agrees it is DTC partner for 'Infrastructure provision'.

Recommend BMS active/ongoing engagement covering cross boundary strategic matters to ensure deliverable/viable JLP. ECC can provide advice ensure evidence consistent from Essex perspective. BMS need to ensure DtC undertaken with Braintree, Colchester and Tendring.

Education: Take into consideration ECC school places documents. Small rural primary schools close to Essex-Suffolk boundary might receive additional pupils, generated by new housing. Discuss proposals with ECC.

Include ECC under 'Employment'. Need to resolve any cross boundary transport and environmental issues.

Include ECC under 'Environmental protection' with Braintree, Colchester, Tendring. Designated environmental assets along Suffolk-Essex boundary.

More details about Rep ID: 8019

Representation ID: 7660

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Environment protection section needs to include another statutory consultee namely Historic Gardens Trust which is statutory consultee for historic parks and gardens as well as Heritage England.
We consider also that it is very important for BDC to cooperate closely with parish councils where the parish council has expressed a wish to be involved on development proposals in its parish, especially with regard to planning obligations and Section 106 provisions.

More details about Rep ID: 7660

Representation ID: 7590

SUPPORT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Generally support however unclear why relevant parish councils are not identified as partners

More details about Rep ID: 7590

Representation ID: 7271

SUPPORT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Generally support however unclear why relevant parish councils are not identified as partners.

More details about Rep ID: 7271

Representation ID: 7265

OBJECT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

There is a failure of meaningful cooperation. There is a lack of proposal of infrastucture improvements to support existing areas, let alone new ones. We have been told that infrastructure is someone else's issue and that infrastructure will only be considered after the new developments have been built.

More details about Rep ID: 7265

Representation ID: 7146

COMMENT Ms Helen Davies

Summary:

Partially support - there is a lack of reference regarding the duty of BMSDC to cooperate at all levels under NPPF policies. Its obvious that BDC have been communicating with Ipswich Borough Council regarding 'cross-border' issues but these have not been communicated at Parish Council and should have been prior to the JLP Consultation. Especially as Ipswich have insufficient land and will be looking to Babergh to provide land - this will impact individual Parishes hence should be discussed before agreeing anything with Ipswich BC.

More details about Rep ID: 7146

Representation ID: 6986

SUPPORT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 6986

Representation ID: 6845

OBJECT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Disagree climate change mitigation and adaption means more than conservation and enhancement of natural and historic environment. There is the need to make sure people can travel safely in non polluting ways and that businesses and homes aim to produce as little waste and pollution as possible.

More details about Rep ID: 6845

Representation ID: 6811

COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)

Summary:

The identified key issues appear to be comprehensive, but I am surprised not to see reference to Parish Councils as Duty to Co-operate partners for several of the issues, but particularly with respect to objectively assessed need for housing and employment. Add Parish Councils to have a voice, to ensure that we truly become the local guardians of the area and can represent the local community as the first line of local govt.

More details about Rep ID: 6811

Representation ID: 6691

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

I accept there is a government requirement to cooperate with other authorities and LPA's particularly on infrastructure
However this JLP fails to acknowledge the NPPF requirement to cooperate at a local level with Parish Councils and communities. Much more, and much better could be achieved without objection if they did but consultation only takes place at the level of statutory consultees at the last stages of development once plans have already been advised on.

More details about Rep ID: 6691

Representation ID: 6649

COMMENT Mr. Derrick Haley

Summary:

We must all co-operate as things cannot now be done in isolation anymore and the more you co-operate the better the outcome.

More details about Rep ID: 6649

Representation ID: 6077

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

The JLP D to C is seen solely in the context of the Localism Act 2011, section 110 and part 2 of the Town & Country regs. 2012. The framework of the JLP appears to cherry pick the NPPF and ignores not only the letter of the document but also the spirit of it of a bottom up process based on local involvement at the community level.
It is not clear where authority is derived to ignore the NPPF as a whole document. The present process of consultation is not a substitute for proper engagement.

More details about Rep ID: 6077

Representation ID: 6037

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Yes, it is obvious for an effective Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 6037

Representation ID: 5815

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes but would like them reordered, see Q2.

More details about Rep ID: 5815

Representation ID: 5808

SUPPORT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

For reasons of efficiency and best use of limited resources.

More details about Rep ID: 5808

Representation ID: 5508

OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon

Summary:

In principle I support these key issues but in reality I anticipate selective adoption of the projects needed to address them all. Specifically I have no confidence that infrastructure will be given the priority and funding that is needed to support the other key issues.

More details about Rep ID: 5508

Representation ID: 5438

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council agrees with the priorities identified although not necessarily the order listed.

More details about Rep ID: 5438

Representation ID: 5205

COMMENT Mrs Ann Hurst

Summary:

areas have been identified but the council needs to take note and listen to the concerns that are being put forward, that are happening every day now without the additional development

More details about Rep ID: 5205

Representation ID: 5088

COMMENT Mrs Rosemary Jones

Summary:

Duty to co-operate cuts both ways. More attention should be paid to Parish concils that represent more intimately their community. Often the Planning office approves an application for building that has been strongly opposed by the Parish Council on behalf of its community.

More details about Rep ID: 5088

Representation ID: 4945

SUPPORT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

Surely a mixture of Statutory requirements and Common Sense.

More details about Rep ID: 4945

Representation ID: 4921

SUPPORT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

We agree with the identified key issues for compliance with the Duty-to-Cooperate for the Babergh and Mid-Suffolk Joint Local Plan

More details about Rep ID: 4921

Representation ID: 4884

SUPPORT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

We agree with the identified key issues on Compliance. It is clearly essential to have compatible objectives with other authorities controlling development and provision of infrastructure which affect the District Councils. Babergh and Mid Suffolk are not of sufficient stature to be able to control the objectives and actions of larger local stakeholders.

More details about Rep ID: 4884

Representation ID: 4546

OBJECT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

DISAGREE see attached paper (named Duty to Co-operate Comments). The Duty to Co-oparate legislative framework sits within Regulation 18 , of the Town and Country Planning Regulations, however it does not adhere to the NPPF as a whole and the Plan Making section starting at Paragraph 150 thereto in particular.

More details about Rep ID: 4546

Representation ID: 4544

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Yes, we agree, it is obvious for an effective Local Plan. Especially given its stated emphasis on establishing 'an ambitious yet sustainable growth agenda which will prioritise the infrastructure investment required to deliver the growth ambitions and will identify the locations for delivering the necessary housing, employment and recreational growth and development'. (See page 12 of the draft NJLP Consultation document).

More details about Rep ID: 4544

Representation ID: 4505

COMMENT Dr David Taylor

Summary:

Housing. It should be an aim to provide most of the new housing as council houses,This is the most effective way of providing affordable homes for local people.

Protection of the environment is an absolute priority.

The character of villages must be preserved.

More details about Rep ID: 4505

Representation ID: 4481

SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

SUPPORT

More details about Rep ID: 4481

Representation ID: 4412

OBJECT Mr Martin Hayman

Summary:

"How are we going to co-operate."

This is a question. Where is the question mark?

How can the general public take this entire document seriously when it is strewn with basic grammatical errors?

More details about Rep ID: 4412

Representation ID: 4114

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

The duty to cooperate should include the requirement for open and transparent decision making.

More details about Rep ID: 4114

Representation ID: 4034

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

To consult more widely with Suffolk-based organisations or Suffolk-specific bodies, e.g. Suffolk Preservation Society and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, to ensure the protection of our natural and built heritage and way of life.

More details about Rep ID: 4034

Representation ID: 3974

OBJECT Mr Richard Howlett

Summary:

It is clear that adequate consultation and consideration has not been given to the local residents of Copdock and Washbrook and communication has been non-existent with many residents being completely unaware of the proposals until near the end of the consultation process when the Parish Council made all residents aware, in their own time and at their own expense. The proposals being completely disproportionate relative to the nature and character of the village and surrounding countryside, environmental impact on nature and the already struggling road infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 3974

Representation ID: 3971

COMMENT ms sally sparrow

Summary:

General agreement but I am not aware that there was any local discussion or communication over the development of the plan at PC level.

More details about Rep ID: 3971

Representation ID: 3644

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Object to one of the key DtC partners in issues other than 'housing' being the IHMA. IHMA is single issue conglomeration and should have no remit for 'Employment', 'Retail, leisure & other commercial', 'Infrastructure provision', 'Environmental protection'.

Local Development Orders - BDC shouldn't cooperate in any mechanism allowing activity without going through planning permission process. Undemocratic/ damaging. Everyone should have input into deciding what comes to pass.

Sproughton Enterprise Park - BDC should not cooperate in encouraging more road traffic to a part of the district where residents' lives are currently shortened by air pollution partly generated by road traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 3644

Representation ID: 3624

OBJECT Dr John Webb

Summary:

The need to help Ipswich appear to be unfairly divided between the districts surrounding Ipswich.

Before grabbing for Babergh territory, Ipswich should be making use of the numerous brownfield sites and derelict properties within its boundaries.

Ipswich should not be allowed to trample on the areas close to its boundaries, and any promises made should be treated with suspicion. One of the justifications given for the closure of Ipswich Airport was a statement by the inspector that there were plenty of alternatives available . 20 or so years later we have yet to find a single one.

More details about Rep ID: 3624

Representation ID: 3552

COMMENT angela harvey

Summary:

From a quick look at these key issues it is hard to tell. My instinctive response is to be concerned that genuine costs will be looked at and community wellbeing will be properly included in any consideration/measurement of 'impact'.

More details about Rep ID: 3552

Representation ID: 3399

SUPPORT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Generally agree with the issues for the reasons outlined in the consultation document.

More details about Rep ID: 3399

Representation ID: 3163

SUPPORT Offton and Willisham Parish Council (Mr Michael Bolton)

Summary:

We agree.

More details about Rep ID: 3163

Representation ID: 3109

OBJECT Iain Pocock

Summary:

I do not believe adequate consideration has been given to date to the interaction with the local community at Copdock and Washbrook where communication has been poor to non-existent with many residents being completely unaware of the proposals until near the end of the consultation process. The proposals being completely disproportionate relative to the nature and character of the village and surrounding countryside, environmental impact, other developments already proposed and the already struggling road infrastructure. Limited housing (10-15%) adjacent to the old A12 would be much more sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 3109

Representation ID: 3078

OBJECT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

In regard to infrastructure the Councils seem to have concentrated exclusively on highway agencies, If one is going to refer to Infrastructure Provision then surely there ought be liaison with;-
Railway Agencies,
Power Agencies, and
Water and Sewage Agencies.

OTHERWISE the KEY PLANNING ISSUE under Infrastructure Provision may be better and more accurately described as TRANSPORT PROVISION

Also it is considered that the phrase "Provision and enhancement of strategic infrastructure improvements" is poorly composed with tautology by use of enhancement and improvements in same sentence. It would read better as:-
Provision and improvement of strategic infrastructure

More details about Rep ID: 3078

Representation ID: 2845

COMMENT Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson)

Summary:

There is a difference between acknowledging the Duty to Co-operate and acting positively and pro-actively to ensure it. Government is concerned about this; the implications of proposals for a Statement of Common Ground contained in the White Paper: Planning for the right homes in the right places will need to be addressed in the next draft of the JLP.

To consult more widely with Suffolk-based organisations or Suffolk-specific bodies, e.g. Suffolk Preservation Society and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, to ensure the protection of our natural and built heritage and way of life and to draw positive advantage from their expertise.

More details about Rep ID: 2845

Representation ID: 2826

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Coxhead

Summary:

Support

More details about Rep ID: 2826

Representation ID: 2702

COMMENT Ms Carole Skippen

Summary:

I am wary of interference by Central Government in order to satisfy a political objective that takes no account of local sensitivities.

More details about Rep ID: 2702

Representation ID: 2553

SUPPORT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council agrees with the key issues.

More details about Rep ID: 2553

Representation ID: 2438

OBJECT Anglian Water (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

Reference is made to the provision and enhancement o strategic infrastructure improvements provided by a range of public bodies but no reference is made to infrastructure provided by private utility companies including Anglian Water.

More details about Rep ID: 2438

Representation ID: 2413

OBJECT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

The Parish Council have found it very difficult to provide a response to the Joint Local Plan. There is a lot of information coupled with 77 questions and a very short space in which a group of people who are not qualified in this matter have to organise other commitments to provide responses.

Questions about Duty to Cooperate completely ignores the duty to engage as set out in paragraph 155 NPPF. Whilst the Duty to Co-operate has been over a 12 week period, small parishes such as ourselves do not meet every month.

More details about Rep ID: 2413

Representation ID: 2353

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

We agree that Babergh DC and Mid Suffolk DC should cooperate.

More details about Rep ID: 2353

Representation ID: 2351

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

The Parish Council firmly believes that without cooperation between those planning authorities in neighbouring areas, often in adjacent counties, that a cohesive Local Plan cannot be made. Residents at the perimeter of the MSDC jurisdiction will often view towns in adjacent counties as their focus for healthcare, shopping, entertainment and recreational pursuits and are consequently drawn out of Suffolk for these purposes, sometimes increasing the burden on those other counties or, of course, vice versa.

More details about Rep ID: 2351

Representation ID: 2083

COMMENT Great Finborough Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell)

Summary:

Don't disagree providing we have the opportunity to have the means to express our opinions and concerns in a meaningful fashion without being ignored which is our experience.

More details about Rep ID: 2083

Representation ID: 1927

SUPPORT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

There appears to be involvement of all key local bodies

More details about Rep ID: 1927

Representation ID: 1900

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Consult with more Suffolk based organisations or Suffolk specific bodies, such as Suffolk Preservation Society and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, in order to ensure the protection of our natural and built heritage and way of life.

More details about Rep ID: 1900

Representation ID: 1638

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

No Comment.

More details about Rep ID: 1638

Representation ID: 1431

COMMENT Mr William Eaton

Summary:

In agreement with reservations ie
The interference by Central Government to satisfy a political objectives that takes no account of local sensitivities

More details about Rep ID: 1431

Representation ID: 1376

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Yes. It is appropriate

More details about Rep ID: 1376

Representation ID: 1222

SUPPORT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Agree. The issues identified are those which require input from other bodies in the locality to be able to progress improvements.

More details about Rep ID: 1222

Representation ID: 931

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

Agree

More details about Rep ID: 931

Representation ID: 911

SUPPORT Mr David Brown

Summary:

I support the objectives of the plan but am wary of interference by Central Government in order to satisfy a political objective that takes no account of local sensitivities

More details about Rep ID: 911

Representation ID: 789

OBJECT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)

Summary:

The duty to co-operate with Local Communities is a statutory requirement under the Localism Act. Under the present arrangements Neighbourhood Plans are not given appropriate weight and communities wishes are ignored.
It is not appropriate that a key DtC partner is the Greater London Authority.

More details about Rep ID: 789

Representation ID: 715

OBJECT Martyn Levett

Summary:

You are not consulting with Rural England nor the Fabian Society who have valuable resource input on the need to retain green space in a village and between villages. It is unclear to me whether the Suffolk Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2013 is the priority or whether the Refreshed Strategic Outcome is being adopted. You will note the significant omission in the latter which omits "outcome 2" in the first 1- 3 yr plan ie the omission that Suffolk residents have access to a healthy environment and take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing is noticable.

More details about Rep ID: 715

Representation ID: 627

OBJECT Mr Ian Evans

Summary:

The sheer volume of land earmarked in Copdock/Washbrook is unfair, especially with neighbouring Wolsey Grange taken into account. I'm not against housing and I do support sustainable levels in the villages, off the Old London Road but the volumes being looked at will overwhelm the villages. I would support a halving of the land being made available, particularly off the Old London Road - we must take our fair share. But compared to other areas, Copdock and Washbrook is being asked to shoulder an unfair number when there is seemingly no plan for extra infrastructure - roads, schools, doctors.

More details about Rep ID: 627

Representation ID: 516

SUPPORT Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings)

Summary:

RPC considers that strategic services, infrastructure and communications should be prioritised throughout Mid Suffolk to ensure core and hinterland villages will be adequately supported.

More details about Rep ID: 516

Representation ID: 260

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Agree with plans duty to cooperate.

More details about Rep ID: 260

Representation ID: 104

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

Although the New Anglia LEP is noted as a key partner I would like to see the importance of local theatre to the local identity made more explicit.

More details about Rep ID: 104

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

Powered by OpusConsult