Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

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

Representation ID: 13116

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.

More details about Rep ID: 13116

Representation ID: 12919

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12919

Representation ID: 12637

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12637

Representation ID: 12566

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

More details about Rep ID: 12566

Representation ID: 12495

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12495

Representation ID: 12257

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.

More details about Rep ID: 12257

Representation ID: 11848

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.

More details about Rep ID: 11848

Representation ID: 10965

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10965

Representation ID: 10248

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.

More details about Rep ID: 10248

Representation ID: 9783

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9783

Representation ID: 9639

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9639

Representation ID: 9504

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.

More details about Rep ID: 9504

Representation ID: 8782

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.

More details about Rep ID: 8782

Representation ID: 7851

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7851

Representation ID: 7324

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.

More details about Rep ID: 7324

Representation ID: 6373

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

See full representation for comments on Spatial Distribution

More details about Rep ID: 6373

Representation ID: 6036

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.

More details about Rep ID: 6036

Representation ID: 4307

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%

More details about Rep ID: 4307

Representation ID: 3889

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.

More details about Rep ID: 3889

Representation ID: 3545

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%

More details about Rep ID: 3545

Representation ID: 3133

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)

More details about Rep ID: 3133

Representation ID: 2043

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

support - have to have fair distribution

More details about Rep ID: 2043

Representation ID: 2039

SUPPORT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

I support the breakdown of suggested growth

More details about Rep ID: 2039

Representation ID: 1741

SUPPORT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Support this proposal

More details about Rep ID: 1741

Representation ID: 779

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.

More details about Rep ID: 779

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

Powered by OpusConsult