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) - Q34
SUPPORT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)
Summary:
Agree to continue to protect existing employment areas.
COMMENT Strutt & Parker Farm Ltd. represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms Laura Dudley-Smith)
Summary:
Whilst we appreciate District-wide objectives for regional scale economic growth and development, it is suggested that the emerging Local Plan has higher regard for the maintenance of growth of the rural business and small business sectors than is had at present. There are examples of small scale sites across the District that accommodate local business and services that serve the surrounding settlements and reduce their reliance and need to travel into the main urban service centres. We consider that these are vital resources in providing a level of sustainability for local villages and small settlements, as well as supporting a valuable rural economy, and should therefore be identified and protected through allocation within the new Local Plan.
OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey
Summary:
*Commercial brownfield sites should be considered in preference to greenfield for all types of development.
COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart
Summary:
Areas which do not have constraints on development or which, if developed, would not have adverse impacts on the environment and/or heritage assets.
COMMENT Mr C. Voetmann represented by Savills (Rachael Morey)
Summary:
The logic of such an approach within the existing development plans is sound and should be taken forward in any new joint plan covering both areas. Such an approach recognises the importance of the contribution that existing employment areas can make to the local area and consequently such well established employment areas (such as Mendlesham Industrial Estate) should be the focus for new additional employment allocations given the importance that such sites can make to the local economy.
COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)
Summary:
Stowmarket Town Council believes that all the current designated sites within the town should be protected.
COMMENT Ms Caroline Powell
Summary:
* Commercial brownfield sites should be considered in preference to greenfield for all types of development.
COMMENT Dr Ian Russell
Summary:
In the Sudbury area, those locations supported by the road infrastructure plan.
COMMENT Miss R P Baillon
Summary:
I do not know enough about the existing employment areas throughout Mid Suffolk, except that in Debenham the current area, Meadow Works Business Park, should be protected.
COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager
Summary:
Commercial brownfield sites should be considered in preference to greenfield for all types of development.
COMMENT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)
Summary:
Nayland with Wissington Parish Council recommends that Core Village and Rural sites be a focus and be identified by Parish Councils
COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)
Summary:
Refer to qtn 33.
COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)
Summary:
Employment areas (existing and new) should satisfy the Planning Authority's sustainability criteria.
COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)
Summary:
Not applicable to our rural community (Botesdale & Rickinghall).
COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)
Summary:
Ipswich, urban areas and market towns
COMMENT Mr Peter Powell
Summary:
* Only those that are strategic to anticipated commercial development over the next 20 years. So much is likely to change in industrial practices in the next 20 years it is quite possible different sites in different areas will be needed before any of the proposed are ever brought forward.
COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)
Summary:
Areas which do not have constraints on development or which, if developed, would not have adverse impacts on the environment and/or heritage assets.
COMMENT Mx Miles Row
Summary:
Continue to protect all sites designated in Stowmarket.
COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)
Summary:
Those with major/suitable access roads.
COMMENT Mr Bernard Rushton
Summary:
Good quality farmland should be protected and reserved for farming
COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)
Summary:
Denham Parish Council believes this should be dependent on local need
SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)
Summary:
Existing employment uses should be protected, and change permitted where justified on a case by case basis.
COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)
Summary:
Not relevant to a Hamlet
COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)
Summary:
All existing employment sites should be identified for protection unless (a) they are below a certain size threshold or (b) there is a clear advantage in achieving a brownfield redevelopment requiring other uses.
COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)
Summary:
LWPC has no views on this subject.
COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)
Summary:
Accessible to good transport links.
SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)
Summary:
Bull Lane and Acton Industrial Estates.
COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve
Summary:
See the answer to Q33 and Lavenham Neighbourhood Development P.lan.
COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)
Summary:
Need more information do not know where they are
COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry
Summary:
Brownfield sites should be considered in preference to greenfield for all types of development.
COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)
Summary:
Those with a reasonable expectation of continued or future employment.
COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)
Summary:
Not relevant to a Hamlet - Woolverstone
COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)
Summary:
See the answers to Q33 and LNDP
OBJECT Mr John Bellwood
Summary:
So much is likely to change in industrial practices in the next 20 years it is quite possible that we will be looking at an entirely different commercial landscape, with entirely different needs. With so much excess sites coming forward there is little point in protecting them.
COMMENT Mrs Rhona Jermyn
Summary:
Protection of existing employment areas and land - currently oversupply by 187 Hectares; need is 12.3. Mostly brownfield. Only strategic sites to be kept for 20 year supply, remainder ideal for new housing thus protecting use of greenfield. Wider use of employment sites should be permitted to fit changing commercial market.
COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell
Summary:
Areas to be identified according to local needs and to maintain support of the local economy
COMMENT Mr Neil Lister
Summary:
Commercial brownfield sites should be considered in preference to Greenfield for all types of new employment development.
COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)
Summary:
It will come as no surprise to MSDC that the Parish Council felt that core, hinterland and hamlet communities should be protected from additional employment development unless there were existing brown field sites providing a limited number of dwellings proportionate to the community population size. Clearly the views expressed throughout this response document from the Parish Council encourages any Local Plan to concentrate developments around urban communities to reduce travelling and ease of transport, benefiting from existing mature infrastructure and allowing sustainability.
COMMENT Mr John Kitson
Summary:
Sites that are strategic in respect of anticipated commercial need. There have been huge changes in industrial practices in recent years and this will undoubtedly be the case going forward. Consequently, it will be difficult to predict need
COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)
Summary:
Protection of employment in agriculture and horticulture is vital
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.
Proposals will be brought forward at the appropriate time and may include measures intended to protect employment within the entire DDNP Area.
COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)
Summary:
Cockfield Parish Council believes those that continue to remain viable and provide opportunities for local employment.
COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)
Summary:
Sudbury, Stowmarket, Hadleigh
COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)
Summary:
Protected employment areas should be those close to towns and areas with good infrastructure.
SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)
Summary:
Support for existing employment areas, and specifically Combs Tannery
COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)
Summary:
Areas to be identified according to local needs and to maintain support of the local economy. There needs to be a relationship between housing and employment and this will in part depend on the preferred spatial distribution.
COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)
Summary:
Areas in core villages. Core villages taking more homes but
jobs and employment sites are being lost.
COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell
Summary:
Areas in core villages. Core villages taking more homes but
jobs and employment sites are being lost.
COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)
Summary:
Protect Notley Enterprise Park
COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)
Summary:
currently in use and currently identified for future use
COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett
Summary:
Protect area that are in defined 'sites', Chilton etc.
COMMENT Mr D C Warren
Summary:
Around Sudbury, various industrial sites are vacant and there appears to be a lot of land still to be developed
Having trouble using the system? Visit our 