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) - Q35

Representation ID: 12858

COMMENT Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (Ms Laura Townes)

Summary:

Representations have been submitted for SS1031 - Lady Lane Employment Allocation - which is proposed as suitable for Starter Homes.

More details about Rep ID: 12858

Representation ID: 12401

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 12401

Representation ID: 11833

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

Summary:

If additional employment land is to be delivered it should be focused on meeting the identified needs in the District which are focused on office development, science park and small business development and distribution development and identify specific sites likely to meet this need.

More details about Rep ID: 11833

Representation ID: 11828

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

Summary:

The vacant Haughley Park poultry processing factory potentially falls within the blanket protection approach adopted by Mid Suffolk District Council. In the future the existing poultry processing factory on Magdalen Sreet, Eye could also fall into the same designation. The emerging plan should make clear that these sites are suitable for alternative uses principally residential development. In any event greater flexibility should be utilised when considering development proposals on employment sites which would involve alternative uses.

There appears to be significant opportunity to utilise existing redundant and previously development employment sites in suitable locations for residential development which would both utilise existing redundant sites and reduce the Council's deficit in housing provision, whilst identifying new and suitable employment land which may actually come forward and meet the needs of the District.

More details about Rep ID: 11828

Representation ID: 11823

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

Summary:

The approach in the emerging plan should be to provide employment land which will be aligned to meet employment needs and therefore will be developed. The emerging plan identifies that such needs are focused on offices, science park and small businesses and distribution uses. As a consequence the emphasis on providing and protecting employment land in the emerging plan should be focused on delivering these types of uses. The blanket approach to protecting all employment land has merely sterilised what could have been alternative development sites contributing to, for instance, meeting the Council's housing land requirement which remains in deficit.

More details about Rep ID: 11823

Representation ID: 11705

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

Summary:

Haughley Park (House), which is a Grade I listed building along with the Grade II listed Barn. There is an existing factory site of the former 2 Sisters Food Group, adjoining the listed building. This factory is currently vacant and has an impact on the surrounding listed buildings. In the context of the wider Haughley Park Consortium proposals, we consider that the factory site should be demolished and returned to a green space or a more complementary use to the existing heritage asset.

In consideration of the wider Haughley Park Consortium proposals, we consider that this employment use should be re-located to Lawn Farm, identified as site SS0773 in the emerging Local Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 11705

Representation ID: 11693

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Yes.
Consideration should be given to professional services, computing and technology, hospitality and leisure and advanced manufacturing and engineering rather than the existing focus on B2 and B8 uses.

More details about Rep ID: 11693

Representation ID: 11246

COMMENT Suffolk Wildlife Trust (Mr James Meyer)

Summary:

Site SS0590/SS0933 (land between Churchfield Road and Waldingfield Road, Sudbury) is known to contain UK Priority habitat and be of value for protected and UK Priority species which would be adversely impacted upon by development of the site. Whilst it is understood that the site previously benefited from planning consent for industrial use, we recommend that this site is allocated for a community/nature conservation use and that alternative industrial provision is made elsewhere in the town.

More details about Rep ID: 11246

Representation ID: 10398

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: 10398

Representation ID: 9726

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

I do not know of any.

More details about Rep ID: 9726

Representation ID: 9626

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

Summary:

Former 2 Sisters Food Group at Haughley Park should be removed to protect and enhance the setting of designated heritage assets, and create new opportunities for leisure activities and events.

we would request that BMSDC should look to support the re-location of the existing employment site at Haughley Park, elsewhere within the District. This would ensure the improvement of the setting of this listed building whilst also not resulting in the loss of an employment site.

More details about Rep ID: 9626

Representation ID: 9043

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Area around Tesco development in Stowmarket.

More details about Rep ID: 9043

Representation ID: 8801

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Vacant brownfield sites if employment does not restart within a defined time - 1 year?

More details about Rep ID: 8801

Representation ID: 8421

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Refer to qtn 33.
Proposed employment land is already considerably in excess of demand. Moreover, recent planning decision experience indicates at least some of it is in the wrong place i.e. not where industrial developers want to build.
The Sugar Beet Factory site alone is already more land than the projected requirement for employment land for the whole of Babergh, all being delivered by Sproughton, which is already a disproportionate community impact compared to other Parishes. With a total oversupply of 187 hectares when the identified need is only 12.3 hectares.

More details about Rep ID: 8421

Representation ID: 8169

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

Summary:

I don't know the details but the disproportionate areas required for Mid Suffolk (9.4 hectare) and available (113 hectare) it would appear logical to reallocate some to other uses.

More details about Rep ID: 8169

Representation ID: 7944

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

I think there are enough, consider Retail/ Leisure or Housing possibilities for the excess.

More details about Rep ID: 7944

Representation ID: 7677

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes. Consideration should be given to professional services, computing and technology, hospitality and leisure and advanced manufacturing and engineering rather than the existing focus on B2 and B8 uses.

More details about Rep ID: 7677

Representation ID: 7609

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

Brownfield sites generally which may be appropriate for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 7609

Representation ID: 7457

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

Brownfield sites generally which may be appropriate for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 7457

Representation ID: 7415

SUPPORT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

I support the use of employment sites where old a nd redundant to be given over to development.

More details about Rep ID: 7415

Representation ID: 6526

COMMENT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Existing employment uses should be protected, and change permitted where justified on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 6526

Representation ID: 6499

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no comment

More details about Rep ID: 6499

Representation ID: 6436

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

Not that we are aware of

More details about Rep ID: 6436

Representation ID: 6206

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

We notice land being cleared at the Creeting side of Stowmarket rail station. We would welcome a mixed use redevelopment of land around both sides of the station, to build up a well designed station quarter.

More details about Rep ID: 6206

Representation ID: 5959

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

None immediately come to mind.

More details about Rep ID: 5959

Representation ID: 5899

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Long term brownfield sites, redundant government/ council/ military/NHS/education sites.

More details about Rep ID: 5899

Representation ID: 5872

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Area around Tesco development in Stowmarket.

More details about Rep ID: 5872

Representation ID: 5725

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

The Delphi site in Sudbury will be vacated during 2019. It is a large site adjacent to existing residential housing development land. It is doubtful that a large single use employer will want such a site. Employment land in other areas of greater Sudbury do not appear to be fully utilised.

More details about Rep ID: 5725

Representation ID: 5583

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Need more information. Don't know where they are.

More details about Rep ID: 5583

Representation ID: 5347

SUPPORT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Sproughton Sugar Beet site should reallocate to Country Park/nature reserve/public open space, reversing disgraceful mismanagement/neglect of River Gipping from Ipswich Central to A14. What should be a beautiful, semi-natural asset to Ipswich and key element in enticing green business to the area/uplifting the spirits of local residents, is instead a litter strewn channel along which/into which 'anything goes'. With this allocation must come the resources to police the river/penalise inappropriate use, with resources to create semi-natural habitat. This site alone already more land than projected employment land requirement, with total oversupply of 187 hectares (identified need is 12.3 hectares).

More details about Rep ID: 5347

Representation ID: 4923

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 4923

Representation ID: 4714

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

In Woolverstone there will be new employment opportunities included in the proposed development at Home Farm.

More details about Rep ID: 4714

Representation ID: 4654

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

The Delphi site in Sudbury will be vacated during 2019. It is a large site adjacent to existing residential housing development land. It is doubtful that a large single use employer will want such a site. Employment land in other areas of greater Sudbury do not appear to be fully utilised.

More details about Rep ID: 4654

Representation ID: 4498

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

Brownfield sites could be reallocated to other uses if it is not required for employment.

More details about Rep ID: 4498

Representation ID: 3904

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

Summary:

Land north of Church Field Road, Sudbury (SHELAA site SS0933) should be reallocated for residential use.

There is no longer sufficient demand for land north of Church Field Road to be allocated for employment use and the site itself is no longer appropriate for employment use.




The NPPF provides firm guidance on the need to reassess employment allocations. Paragraph 22 states that 'planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed.'

More details about Rep ID: 3904

Representation ID: 3682

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Sproughton Sugar Beet site should reallocate to Country Park/nature reserve/public open space, reversing disgraceful mismanagement/neglect of River Gipping from Ipswich Central to A14. What should be a beautiful, semi-natural asset to Ipswich and key element in enticing green business to the area/uplifting the spirits of local residents, is instead a litter strewn channel along which/into which 'anything goes'. With this allocation must come the resources to police the river/penalise inappropriate use, with resources to create semi-natural habitat. This site alone already more land than projected employment land requirement, with total oversupply of 187 hectares (identified need is 12.3 hectares).

More details about Rep ID: 3682

Representation ID: 3462

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

It is the Parish Council's view that this exercise could be best delivered by undertaking an alternative SHELAA specifically for employment/industrial land which might allow the identification of alternative industrial land and perhaps brown field sites which could have the provision for additional housing as described in a previous section.

More details about Rep ID: 3462

Representation ID: 3446

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Brownfield sites which are unlikely to be used in/suited to the needs of new technologies or where the lan would be more appropriate for residential development

More details about Rep ID: 3446

Representation ID: 3255

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Not in this area

More details about Rep ID: 3255

Representation ID: 3000

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

no

More details about Rep ID: 3000

Representation ID: 2915

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2915

Representation ID: 2903

COMMENT Mr Graham Shorrock

Summary:

The old Sugar Beet factory site on the outskirts of Ipswich has remained derelict since 2000/2001 this should now be allocated to housing development. Such a waste of a valuable land resource should not be tolerated.

More details about Rep ID: 2903

Representation ID: 2633

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council believes that it may be beneficial to refocus, where for example a commercial employment premises is located in a predominantly residential area such the former could then become redeveloped to residential use,

More details about Rep ID: 2633

Representation ID: 2287

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

None that we are aware of in this parish.

More details about Rep ID: 2287

Representation ID: 2231

OBJECT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 2231

Representation ID: 1935

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 1935

Representation ID: 1832

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

No comment - not enough knowledge.

More details about Rep ID: 1832

Representation ID: 1571

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Haughley Park.

More details about Rep ID: 1571

Representation ID: 1255

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Not aware of any.

More details about Rep ID: 1255

Representation ID: 855

SUPPORT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

Given the unprecedented scale of development predicted, particularly if the new regional route (by-pass) is to happen, we call for a complete strategic review of all employment land needs in Sudbury and Halstead areas. The current vacant sites on Churchfield Road should be fully re-considered, in view of the length of time since they were selected, given that they are greenfield sites and only in 2017 was there an Economic Impact Assessment by Natural England which found against disturbance of the Priority Grassland Habitat.

More details about Rep ID: 855

Representation ID: 814

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: 814

Representation ID: 289

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Chilton Woods? Sproughton

More details about Rep ID: 289

Representation ID: 210

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 210

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

Powered by OpusConsult