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) - Q33

Representation ID: 13178

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

Summary:

Employment land is required to fulfil economic needs to an area. However, keeping land in perpetuity should not take precedence over allowing other potential uses from being promoted through engagement or application process. At that point, the merits of the indicative proposal should be fully and appropriately considered.
We support option ECON2 in line with the Council's preference. However, land that shows no evidence of demand for employment use must quickly and efficiently be identified as available for alternative uses, such as residential use. The methods of assessing this demand must not be complicated and must not hold up the process of identifying this land for residential use.

More details about Rep ID: 13178

Representation ID: 12494

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

Summary:

Employment land is required to fulfil economic needs to an area. However, keeping land in perpetuity should not take precedence over allowing other potential uses from being promoted through engagement or application process. At that point, the merits of the indicative proposal should be fully and appropriately considered.

We support option ECON2 in line with the Council's preference. However, land that shows no evidence of demand for employment use must quickly and efficiently be identified as available for alternative uses, such as residential use. The methods of assessing this demand must not be complicated and must not hold up the process of identifying this land for residential use.

More details about Rep ID: 12494

Representation ID: 12399

SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

Yes - agree

More details about Rep ID: 12399

Representation ID: 12347

COMMENT Strutt & Parker Farm Ltd. represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)

Summary:

The Joint Local Plan Issues and Options correctly recognise a need for the new Local Plan to "promote economic growth proactively and address barriers to investment" and the broad objectives seek to support this need. We note however that a key decision to make is whether to continue to protect existing areas and whether these are the right areas to protect for employment use. Given current economic climates with unprecedented economic demand there will no doubt be pressure on the reuse of previously developed sites to provide housing. We therefore think that in the interests of maintaining a strong local economy that will be able to continue to support the inevitable housing growth, successful employment land and premises should be protected from redevelopment/conversion to other uses unless it can be robustly evidenced that the provision is excess to the local needs or unsuitable for continued use for other reasons.

More details about Rep ID: 12347

Representation ID: 12337

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

Summary:

Employment land is required to fulfil economic needs to an area. However, keeping land in perpetuity should not take precedence over allowing other potential uses from being promoted through engagement or application process. At that point, the merits of the indicative proposal should be fully and appropriately considered.

We support option ECON2 in line with the Council's preference. However, land that shows no evidence of demand for employment use must quickly and efficiently be identified as available for alternative uses, such as residential use. The methods of assessing this demand must not be complicated and must not hold up the process of identifying this land for residential use.

More details about Rep ID: 12337

Representation ID: 11954

COMMENT Fieldens Ltd represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

There are additional circumstances, where the employment use is no longer suitable in its current location. This is the case for the site at Starhouse Lane, Onehouse. It is currently in use as a Honda ATV, garden equipment and agricultural machinery, and industrial tyre and wheel business. It is proposed that these uses would be relocated to a more sustainable location for employment use. This would remove the current adverse impacts of the fumes, smells, dirt and noise, from the current industrial use of the site on the edge of a rural village. It is suggested that re-locating existing employment sites, such as this site, would provide an opportunity to contribute to economic growth, but also significantly improve an existing less than desirable area for employment.

More details about Rep ID: 11954

Representation ID: 11821

OBJECT Amber REI represented by Pegasus Group (Mr David Onions)

Summary:

The existing approach, which has been to protect existing employment sites, has clearly not been successful in delivering new employment development. As set out above substantial sites in the District are identified for employment use and these areas remain undeveloped. The scale of this issue is such that the document recognises that more land is currently available within the District than the forecast needs identified in the EEFM. In such circumstances the blanket approach to retain any employment land irrespective of circumstances is clearly flawed. Greater emphasis should be placed upon how a particular site would provide for the type of employment required by the District taking into account a range of factors which could include its location, links to transport network, its suitability for the particular needs the District requires, types of buildings and suitability for conversion/redevelopment, viability issues, as well as marketing.

Protecting employment land irrespective of its type or location should be dropped with a greater emphasis placed on the need to deliver the type of employment development the District actually requires.

More details about Rep ID: 11821

Representation ID: 11690

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

I prefer option EC0N1. To have a forecast jobs growth need of 2.9 hectares of employment land in Babergh during the JLP period, whereas as at 1 April 2015, there was already 86.06 hectares in Babergh, including 20 hectares at Chilton Woods, allocated for employment uses, there is clearly a substantial excess of employment land over forecast needs.
Accordingly, I support option EC0N1. Given the surplus, any employment land allocations which have adverse impacts on the environment or heritage assets should be re-evaluated.

More details about Rep ID: 11690

Representation ID: 11689

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

Summary:

Boyer acknowledges the need for the emerging Joint Local Plan to provide sufficient employment sites, as part of a balance of 'homes and jobs'. However as per NPPF paragraph 22, the long-term protection of employment sites where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose should be avoided. We would agree that, subject to marketing, employment sites that are not considered sustainable and no longer have a reasonable prospect of their existing use should be carefully re-considered for other uses. Additional circumstances should be considered such as where re-locating employment sites would significantly improve an existing less than desirable area.

More details about Rep ID: 11689

Representation ID: 11501

COMMENT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )

Summary:

GCPC believes there should be a fundamental and urgent review of the employment requirements in the area. GCPC's view is that development should go hand in hand with employment. As in previous plan iterations there is land allocated for employment use in the area which has not been developed, there is no demonstrated need for the provision of land for employment use in Great Cornard.

More details about Rep ID: 11501

Representation ID: 11432

COMMENT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

Existing protections must continue or the employment land resource will be eroded unacceptably, leading ultimately to a demand for new allocations at some time in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 11432

Representation ID: 11027

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that the District Councils should continue to identify existing employment areas and protect land and premises in those areas from redevelopment/conversion to other uses unless market evidence demonstrates there is no demand for employment use.

More details about Rep ID: 11027

Representation ID: 10797

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 10797

Representation ID: 10721

COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell

Summary:

* Council finances dependent on growth but projections appear optimistic. The finances of every council depend on attracting growth so this is nationally competitive and yet there is no policy to achieve that, just wishful thinking. The Sugar Beet Factory site alone is already more land than the projected requirement for employment land with a total oversupply of 187 hectares (identified need is 12.3 hectares).

More details about Rep ID: 10721

Representation ID: 10657

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Qu.33 -41 To allocate minimum amount of employment land is the best plan

More details about Rep ID: 10657

Representation ID: 10397

COMMENT Delphi Diesel Systems represented by Colliers International (Mr Leigh Thomas)

Summary:

It is evident that the supply of employment land in Babergh significantly outweighs the demand. It is anticipated that a marketing exercise on behalf of Delphi will be undertaken in order to establish if there is any demand for continued employment use at the Newton Road site once Delphi's operations have ceased. However, the District-wide evidence compiled by the Council to date suggests that there may be limited demand for the site. On this basis, and as set out in the previous section, Delphi are currently exploring future options for the site. Delphi request that the current industrial designation is removed.

More details about Rep ID: 10397

Representation ID: 10306

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Employment land is required to fulfil economic needs to an area. However, keeping land in perpetuity should not take precedence over allowing other potential uses from being promoted through engagement or application process.
At that point, the merits of the indicative proposal should be fully and appropriately considered

More details about Rep ID: 10306

Representation ID: 9887

SUPPORT Dr Ian Russell

Summary:

Should we continue to identify existing employment areas and protect land and premises in these areas from redevelopment/conversion to other uses unless marketing evidence demonstrates there is no demand for employment use?

Yes, but in the Sudbury area a plan for improvement of road infrastructure and other amentities must come first.

More details about Rep ID: 9887

Representation ID: 9724

SUPPORT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 9724

Representation ID: 9652

COMMENT Mr Chris Marshall

Summary:

I would support the use of the considerable oversupply of commercial sites coming forward as retail/leisure parks or even housing, especially where those sites are brownfield and have little community/environmental impact.

More details about Rep ID: 9652

Representation ID: 9625

COMMENT R Williams, A Williams and Ensors Trustee Co. Ltd represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

We would agree that, subject to market evidence, employment sites that are not considered sustainable and no longer have a reasonable prospect of their existing use should be carefully re-considered for other uses.

As long as suitable, alternative employment sites are found, this approach would be supported, as reconsidering existing employment sites without suitable replacement sites would not be acceptable. Councils should look to include specific text within a policy to reflect what would be an acceptable period that a vacant site should be marketed for. Given time period should be justifiable yet sufficient. This would prevent the long term protection of sites for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of them being used for that purpose as per NPPF Paragraph 22. We would expect and encourage BMSDC to align with this.

More details about Rep ID: 9625

Representation ID: 9590

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

Council finances dependent on growth but projections appear optimistic. The finances of every council depend on attracting growth so this is nationally competitive and yet there is no policy to achieve that, just wishful thinking. The Sugar Beet Factory site alone is already more land than the projected requirement for employment land with a total oversupply of 187 hectares (identified need is 12.3 hectares).

More details about Rep ID: 9590

Representation ID: 9444

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Loss of small businesses because their sites are worth more for housing than employment is unacceptable, sites with current business use should be protected.

More details about Rep ID: 9444

Representation ID: 9343

COMMENT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports a policy that protects current rural employment areas, sites, land and premises from re-development/conversion to other uses unless robust marketing evidence demonstrates there is no demand for employment use.

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council believes that there is merit in using a robust criteria based approach in assessing each case

More details about Rep ID: 9343

Representation ID: 9099

SUPPORT Simon Bell

Summary:

Yes. Given that current modelling suggest allocated land exceeds requirements over the period, there should be adequate supply of employment land to meet demand.

More details about Rep ID: 9099

Representation ID: 9042

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

No, Site by Site basis and in conjunction with application for use on Green field sites. There are large areas of identified employment land that is not in use and has not been for many years and consideration is being given to Greenfield site for housing development. The lack of ability to attract employment clients to the area will be based on the economy and growth of the area, but not at the cost of the countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 9042

Representation ID: 9008

COMMENT Andrew Searle

Summary:

No. The world of work is changing and the need for factory/works/premises is reducing.

More details about Rep ID: 9008

Representation ID: 8798

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Not necessarily, if a policy of regenerating not only Urban areas and Market Towns, but also Core (or smaller) villages can be adopted to encourage new sympathetically located employment sites - i.e. identified land can be used for both housing and employment if well thought out

More details about Rep ID: 8798

Representation ID: 8417

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

There appears to be a current over supply of sites in the order of 187 hectares in total compared with actual need of 12.3; these are mostly brown field sites. Only protect strategic sites to ensure 20 year supply remainder of existing sites may be ideal for new housing plus protecting the use of greenfield sites. Wider class use of employment sites should be permitted to for changing commercial market.
The jobs forecast does not support the level of housing growth suggested. However, the JLP turns this on its head and suggests if more houses are built, more jobs will be required. Is this 'Build it and they will come" wishful thinking? More evidence is needed.

More details about Rep ID: 8417

Representation ID: 8371

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

Yes. But where there is little, or no, possibility of generating employment on land already designated for employment use the existing protections should be removed. In this way the employment land register will only contain sites considered to be viable.

More details about Rep ID: 8371

Representation ID: 8162

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

Summary:

In rural areas most sites proposed for development are currently in use for agriculture and is thus employment land, and I think this situation should be dealt with separately from the specifically identified employment land referenced. Continue to protect land and premises in employment areas.

More details about Rep ID: 8162

Representation ID: 8081

SUPPORT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

yes

More details about Rep ID: 8081

Representation ID: 7939

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

* The JLP identifies an oversupply of 187 hectares (identified need is 12.3 hectares) of available employment land.
* Some of this is likely to be brownfield land in ideal areas for housing development. We feel it should be used for that in preference to greenfield land proposed for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 7939

Representation ID: 7922

SUPPORT Mr David Watts

Summary:

Yes. And please scrutinise the marketing evidence provided by developers if it shows employment not viable. I am sure they often come up with spurious evidence because they make more money out of building houses.

More details about Rep ID: 7922

Representation ID: 7675

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

We prefer option ECON1. To have a forecast jobs growth need of 2.9 hectares of employment land in Babergh during the JLP period, whereas as at 1 April 2015, there was already 86.06 hectares in Babergh, including 20 hectares at Chilton Woods, allocated for employment uses, there is clearly a substantial excess of employment land over forecast needs. Accordingly, we support option EC0N1. Given the surplus, any employment land allocations which have adverse impacts on the environment or heritage assets should be re-evaluated.

More details about Rep ID: 7675

Representation ID: 7608

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Land should not be protected as 'employment land' and not available for housing if the evidence shows an excess of (or even simple lack of demand for) employment land and a shortfall of housing sites.

More details about Rep ID: 7608

Representation ID: 7521

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

Yes to prevent hollowing out of towns and because it allows for services to be more accessible for non-drivers and also does not further increase car use which both tie in to the strategic policies.

More details about Rep ID: 7521

Representation ID: 7452

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Land should not be protected as 'employment land' and not available for housing if the evidence shows an excess of (or even simple lack of demand for) employment land and a shortfall of housing sites.

More details about Rep ID: 7452

Representation ID: 7408

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

Brownfield land is better used and protects greenfield land which enhances communities.

More details about Rep ID: 7408

Representation ID: 7197

COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton

Summary:

Good quality farmland should be protected and reserved for farming

More details about Rep ID: 7197

Representation ID: 6721

COMMENT Yaxley Parish Council (Mr Philip Freeman)

Summary:

It will be necessary to continue to identify existing employment areas.

More details about Rep ID: 6721

Representation ID: 6599

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council supports this.

More details about Rep ID: 6599

Representation ID: 6518

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 6518

Representation ID: 6492

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

yes

More details about Rep ID: 6492

Representation ID: 6434

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

Employment and residential land should have equal weight and developments in close proximity should be the accepted planning approach

More details about Rep ID: 6434

Representation ID: 6367

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 6367

Representation ID: 6187

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

In principle yes, you need to protect these areas, and recognise that land owners will go to great lengths to gain a residential permission on land allocated for employment use. If the system is to have integrity and meet local needs you will need to be robust and patient. Marketing evidence is often very suspect. If the word gets round that a site is not readily available prospective developers will just move on to something else.

More details about Rep ID: 6187

Representation ID: 5949

SUPPORT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5949

Representation ID: 5895

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5895

Representation ID: 5869

OBJECT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

No, Site by Site basis and in conjunction with application for use on Green field sites. There are large areas of identified employment land that is not in use and has not been for many years and consideration is being given to Greenfield site for housing development. The lack of ability to attract employment clients to the area will be based on the economy and growth of the area, but not at the cost of the countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 5869

Representation ID: 5721

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

The lack of an economic appraisal and employment trends data means the answers to this section cannot be properly considered.

Yes in general to the question. However, no criteria are given and bearing in mind the preamble note to this section the first part of the question cannot be fully explored. The second part as it relates to change of use may need to use specific marketing evidence relative to the property concerned, but also generic evidence as it relates to say an area or type of activity.

More details about Rep ID: 5721

Representation ID: 5579

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Yes agree.

More details about Rep ID: 5579

Representation ID: 5344

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Commercial brownfield sites should be considered in preference to greenfield for all types of development.

More details about Rep ID: 5344

Representation ID: 5124

SUPPORT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5124

Representation ID: 5008

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 5008

Representation ID: 4917

SUPPORT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 4917

Representation ID: 4709

SUPPORT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 4709

Representation ID: 4651

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Yes. However, no criteria are given and bearing in mind our preamble note to this section the first part of the question cannot be fully explored. The second part as it relates to change of use may need to use specific marketing evidence relative to the property concerned, but also generic evidence as it relates to say an area or type of activity.

More details about Rep ID: 4651

Representation ID: 4494

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

Babergh should continue to identify employment areas, but retain flexibility for the use should the demand change.

More details about Rep ID: 4494

Representation ID: 4308

SUPPORT Mr Jeremy Doncaster

Summary:

Commercial brownfield sites should be considered in preference to greenfield for all types of development.

More details about Rep ID: 4308

Representation ID: 4254

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

Old industrial sites do not equate to modern employment needs - Sugar Beet should be a mixed development.

existing oversupply - brownfield sites could be used for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 4254

Representation ID: 4210

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

yes

More details about Rep ID: 4210

Representation ID: 3916

COMMENT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

Existing employment land should be protected. BUT If it is decided to allow redevelopment for non employment uses - then part of that process should require IN ALL CASES that the developer provides an alternative site for employment land, or contributes monies under an appropriate S106 toward the District's employment promotion fund. To allow development/conversion of employment land without the related contribution to the promotion, encouragement and provision of sites for employment would be contrary to Councils Key Economy Objectives and undermine its achievement of securing the Districts continued growth.

More details about Rep ID: 3916

Representation ID: 3899

OBJECT Caverswall Holdings Ltd/Highbridge Properties plc and West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust represented by CODE Development Planners Ltd (Ms Karen Beech)

Summary:

As part of the employment technical evidence base of the draft Local Pan two reports have been prepared the ELNA and the SNA which demonstrate that only 2.9 ha of land will be required for employment uses in Babergh between 2014 and 2036 and that at the current time, 86.06 ha of employment land is available.

This evidence provides the justification for a full re-assessment of existing employment allocations, such as land north of Church Field Road in Sudbury, that have not come forward to date.

More details about Rep ID: 3899

Representation ID: 3680

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

You must commit to publishing marketing evidence as obtained. No new additional employment areas must be designated. Brexit effect not considered, in trade, employment or migration calculations. 20-year projections based on historic data, pre Brexit Vote. Bulk growth came from migration, so likely very over optimistic. Council finances depend on growth but projections over optimistic and attracting growth is nationally competitive. There is no policy to achieve growth, just wishful thinking! Sugar Beet Factory site alone is already more land than the projected requirement for employment land with total oversupply of 187 hectares (identified need is 12.3 hectares).

More details about Rep ID: 3680

Representation ID: 3458

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

In principal we favoured the option ECON1 but recognise that additional small sites for B1 uses might benefit the future viability of core villages. The Parish Council did recognise that to restrict centring this type of development upon the only 2 sites across MSDC (Eye and Stowmarket) it will lead to greater travelling unless housing can be concentrated around these two centres. We were also concerned about the possibility that this employment land could be transferred to other uses (possibly housing). The Council would oppose this approach.

More details about Rep ID: 3458

Representation ID: 3442

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Within Babergh District, Option ECON1 would appear to be appropriate given the ample employment land at the former Sugar Beet site in Sproughton. Not sure of the situation in MSDC area.

More details about Rep ID: 3442

Representation ID: 3253

SUPPORT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 3253

Representation ID: 2997

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

This is an rural area where the majority of land is dedicated to agriculture.

More details about Rep ID: 2997

Representation ID: 2912

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

Summary:

The DDNP will have to take into consideration the local economic growth requirement and uses as appropriate not only to the DDNP Area but to the individual settlements within it.

Until this work is progressed it appears sensible to maintain this approach within the DDNP Area.

More details about Rep ID: 2912

Representation ID: 2902

OBJECT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

In identyfying land for commercial use a time limit should be enforced. If development has not commenced within say 5 years then the land should be made available for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 2902

Representation ID: 2630

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council believes yes - subject to context, environment and local impact.

More details about Rep ID: 2630

Representation ID: 2597

COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)

Summary:

It is considered that existing employment land should be protected, but if a policy is devised to allow it to be developed to other uses then part of that process should require the developer to provide an alternative site for employment land, or contribute monies under an appropriate S106 toward the District's employment promotion fund.

More details about Rep ID: 2597

Representation ID: 2552

COMMENT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

No view

More details about Rep ID: 2552

Representation ID: 2429

SUPPORT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 2429

Representation ID: 2285

SUPPORT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

Yes protect existing employment areas

More details about Rep ID: 2285

Representation ID: 2229

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Econ2

More details about Rep ID: 2229

Representation ID: 2061

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

Its very easy to give up employment land and build more houses but harder to gain such land in the first place. I think there has to be a rigorous assessment if it is considered no longer fit for purpose or viable. - perhaps think outside the box and look in the same area for better employment land and swap them over?

More details about Rep ID: 2061

Representation ID: 1933

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 1933

Representation ID: 1830

SUPPORT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Broadly yes, but there should be greater scrutiny when sites are considered for development.

More details about Rep ID: 1830

Representation ID: 1763

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Broadly yes, but there should be greater scrutiny when sites are considered for development.

More details about Rep ID: 1763

Representation ID: 1569

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 1569

Representation ID: 1561

SUPPORT Mr Alan Scott

Summary:

There is a need for employment in the area greater than that for second or holiday homes.

More details about Rep ID: 1561

Representation ID: 1252

OBJECT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

NO. Put on hold until 2037 (expiry of Plan). In Babergh area 2.9 hectares identified, against 86.6 hectares land stock which is enough for 29 years up to 2046

More details about Rep ID: 1252

Representation ID: 1148

SUPPORT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

sensible approach

More details about Rep ID: 1148

Representation ID: 989

SUPPORT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

agree

More details about Rep ID: 989

Representation ID: 854

SUPPORT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

Yes, except that some should not be developed, if their quality as wildlife habitat and open green space is high; given the length of time since these areas were allocated, some on poor or faulty information, or outside the settlement boundary. New sites should now be the subject of an Economic Impact Assessment, preceded by a year's pause in mowing or cultivation; regardless of the ownership or planning permission the land is subject to.

More details about Rep ID: 854

Representation ID: 813

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

Summary:

The answer to this depends on individual circumstances. For example if the current chicken factory closed then housing on the site would be appropriate as Webread has narrow roads and is not a good village in which to locate a major factory. In summary, the answer to these three questions does depend on each case.

More details about Rep ID: 813

Representation ID: 287

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Open free approach, pragmatic (how do we know what's coming round corner for 20 years)

More details about Rep ID: 287

Representation ID: 208

SUPPORT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Makes good use of existing stock

More details about Rep ID: 208

Representation ID: 120

OBJECT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

The assumption is that the land and premises used by one industry will be suitable for conversion to another in the fullness of time and in the short-term it is better to have them standing derelict and deteriorating. This does not seem logical. Better, surely, to require developers to clean up and reuse the land for identified need such as housing and allow for the development of new sites elsewhere which meet the need of modern industries.

More details about Rep ID: 120

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

Powered by OpusConsult