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) - Spatial Distribution
COMMENT Suffolk Coastal District Council (Mr Mark Edgerley)
Summary:
Four options are identified with a percentage of distribution given for each. It will be important for these spatial distributions to be considered alongside the spatial distributions which emerge from both Ipswich Borough and Suffolk Coastal District Councils. As currently presented there are likely to be similarities between the "County town focussed" option and the "transport corridor focussed" option that are presented within the Suffolk Coastal Issues and Options document.
OBJECT Dr Jonathan Tuppen
Summary:
The consultation presents four options for the distribution of housing development over the plan period. We regard this as a divisive approach, encouraging responses based on inference of what the local consequences might be, rather than a more strategic and objective analysis.
COMMENT Environment Agency (Miss Charlie Christensen)
Summary:
We don't have a preference in principle for the approach taken.... want to see an approach that maximises opportunities to protect and enhance the environment...all development should be allocated in accordance with the flood risk sequential test.
Whichever approach is taken, it must..ensure...capacity for the disposal of treated effluent...no environmental restrictions onincreasing sewage discharges at coastal and estuarine Water Recycling Centres (WRCs).... could be restrictions in increasing sewage discharges into small watercourses from market towns and villages. WRC at Cliff Quay, Ipswich has capacity at present, so no issues with development in the Ipswich fringe area connecting to this WRC.
OBJECT Fressingfield Housing Working Group (Mr Paul Woodward)
Summary:
a market exercise with no reality check from local people. Density is critical but not mentioned making it difficult to judge options. The options are crude and inaccurate so this spatial distribution is inadequate. It does not comply with sustainability criterion of NPPF
Suffolk Coastal's approach is preferable
COMMENT Stoke by Nayland Parish Council (Mr James Dark)
Summary:
Comments apply to villages within AONBs only.
No suggestion of special treatment for villages in AONBs.
COMMENT R G Williams Ltd represented by Gardner Planning (Mr Geoff Gardner)
Summary:
DCLG initiative for increasing housing supply is to boost supply particularly on areas where there is the biggest discrepancy between existing house prices and income levels. Both of these factors would suggest a high level of new housebuilding in the rural areas, and the settlement hierarchy has already defined where that should be - in the Core Villages which have the advantage of being in the best area to serve the needs of families in the District and the ability to accommodate sustainable development because of the services and infrastructure they offer.
COMMENT Cornard Tye Residents Association (Mr. Michael Evans)
Summary:
It would make sense for large strategic developments to be placed near the best area for employment prospects (in the East of the district) and near the main transport and main line routes, rather than near Sudbury which has a poor transport infrastructure and no new jobs.
OBJECT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)
Summary:
In short, we do not believe the consultation questions on spatial distribution can be answered on the basis of the information made available to date and the exercise is thus unhelpful and counterproductive.
OBJECT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)
Summary:
We would object to the Councils adopting any single one of the Options set out above.
OBJECT Mr Colin Johnston
Summary:
In the past people, in the main, people lived in a settlement and worked there or near by; sustainable modes of transport (before the internal combustion engine) were used. In the present day planners and politicians invoke the sustainability of such arrangements and extol the virtues of people living in urban centres, where most jobs are, along with appropriate services and infrastructure. This should be the starting point for Babergh's strategy on housing.
OBJECT Mr Chris Marshall
Summary:
* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites.
* JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities.
OBJECT Cllr John Hinton
Summary:
Appropriate house distribution - taking account of infrastructure is the main criteria that would rebalance the housing market but it is ignored.
COMMENT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince
Summary:
New Settlement of Spatial Distribution
* It is the proposition to create a new or garden town, a separate and distinct community most probably in a new location with minimal local impact but the potential to improve/create improved county infrastructure/services.
* This issue is highly adversarial and personal. No one wants something like this in their back yard. So ideally situated where it least effects existing communities but with ready access to Road and Rail links.
* Some suggestions: Near Gt Blakenham, South of Sudbury close to rail link, Somewhere between Belstead/Bentley and A12/Main Railway.
COMMENT Dr Ian Russell
Summary:
The only infrastructure for east-west traffic at Sudbury is the Belle Vue junction and Ballingdon Bridge. The gyratory system that has turned Sudbury into a giant roundabout,a blight on Sudbury. New infrastructure is eseential to any Vision for Prosperity for Sudbury. New roads are necessary to remove all HGVs and as much other traffic as possible from the town. An update to the plan for a bridge at Great Cornard is an appropriate solution. Diverting the A131 to join the A1071 would link the communities of South Suffolk and North Essex without Sudbury as an obstacle.
OBJECT Mr Peter Powell
Summary:
With Hierarchy two arbitrary systems of criteria and scoring that apparently come together to justify all the site locations proposed. Amazing.
COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)
Summary:
See full representation for comments on Spatial Distribution
OBJECT Neil Fuller
Summary:
* The combined arbitrary criteria for scoring of both Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution chosen by BMSDC for the JLP just appears to promote the site availability that has come forward, effectively a mechanism to justify the sites.
* JLP to 2036 gives opportunity for bold, innovative and creative thinking but continuing the urban sprawl / welding / merging communities not the answer.
* Creating well planned, self-sufficient purpose built settlements with their own identities is and thereby preserving the qualities of existing communities.
OBJECT Mrs Louise Baldry
Summary:
Four options offered 1) County Town Focused , 2) Market Town / Rural balance.
3) Transport Corridor Focused . 4) New Settlement Focused .
Due to the settlement types designated to Sproughton in the Hierarchy scoring the first three options propose over 50% of growth in our designations, only the last option reduces this to 35%
OBJECT Mr John Bellwood
Summary:
Distribution should be in line with existing spatial distribution of households in the district. This will reduce the need for expensive transport infrastructure projects around Ipswich and allow for organic development of services.
If this is not possible, the development of a garden village where the appropriate infrastructure can be put in place before any development - a village to cater for the future generations of residents and not one that satisfies the needs of property developers.
OBJECT Mr Richard Howard
Summary:
Four options offered 1) County Town Focused , 2) Market Town / Rural balance.
3) Transport Corridor Focused . 4) New Settlement Focused .
Due to the settlement types designated to Sproughton in the Hierarchy scoring the first three options propose over 50% of growth in our designations, only the last option reduces this to 35%
OBJECT Iain Pocock
Summary:
Object. Greater dispersion of housing will put less stress on road network allowing people to live closer to work location reducing environmental impact and gridlocking surrounding villages which have no infrastructure (eg A12/!4 junction at capacity with knock on impact into villages where it is proposed to dramatically increase size and therefore add to congestion)
SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie
Summary:
I support the breakdown of suggested growth
OBJECT Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro)
Summary:
The Current Local Plan recommended that 70% of new housing be in urban areas while 30% in Rural settings. Since 2001 approximately 60% of new housing was in rural areas at complete odds with the agreed Plan. The draft Plan recommends that urban areas account for 60% of new builds. There is no discussion as to how this target will be monitored and enforced in the light of the previous missed target. More pressure on rural communities with limited infrastructure will result in less sustainable development. The 1998 Local Plan stresses the need to develop along the A14 confirming a strategy of minimising pressure on small towns and villages with the view to reducing travel and servicing costs.
Having trouble using the system? Visit our 