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) - Q38

Representation ID: 13181

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

Summary:

We agree with the Councils' initial preference of allocating more land than is required to meet the forecast jobs growth to ensure flexibility and choice in line with Option ECON2.

This would ensure that there are sufficient employment opportunities across both Districts to meet the demand. As set out previously, this approach to employment should also be replicated in the provision of housing.

More details about Rep ID: 13181

Representation ID: 13014

COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

The proposal to allocate more employment land than is identified as necessary to ensure greater flexibility and choice is supported as long as it does not hinder the delivery of housing development required to meet the needs of the IHMA.

More details about Rep ID: 13014

Representation ID: 12867

SUPPORT Tidal Hill Limited represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

We believe that the plan should make provision for both more housing and more employment land in order to encourage economic growth, secure a greater proportion of jobs for the resident population and ensure there is an attractive range and choice of sites which can suit a range of end users and their particular locational and space requirements.

More details about Rep ID: 12867

Representation ID: 12857

COMMENT Persimmon Homes (Anglia) (Ms Laura Townes)

Summary:

The consultation document also acknowledges that if a higher level of economic growth is pursued it may be necessary to increase the housing requirement. Therefore, a plan that is flexible to respond to increased economic growth should also be flexible to respond to meeting associated housing growth.

More details about Rep ID: 12857

Representation ID: 12499

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

Summary:

We agree with the Councils' initial preference of allocating more land than is required to meet the forecast jobs growth to ensure flexibility and choice in line with Option ECON2.This would ensure that there are sufficient employment opportunities across both Districts to meet the demand. This approach to employment opportunities should also be replicated in the provision of housing.

More details about Rep ID: 12499

Representation ID: 12404

OBJECT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 12404

Representation ID: 12353

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

Summary:

Whilst initial studies have identified more employment land available than the forecast needs, we propose that the Council should target the supply of more employment land than that required to meet the jobs growth forecast by the East of England Forecasting Model, particularly given that these forecasts do not necessarily reflect local drivers of growth, such as housing. To manage growth in Mid Suffolk and Babergh appropriately, the Districts need to ensure that they continue to provide and facilitate the appropriate level of facilities and services for increasing populations and communities outside of the main urban settlements to ensure that these locations continue to be sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 12353

Representation ID: 12340

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

Summary:

We agree with the Councils' initial preference of allocating more land than is required to meet the forecast jobs growth to ensure flexibility and choice in line with Option ECON2.

this would ensure that there are sufficient employment opportunities across both Districts to meet the demand. As set out previously in this document, this approach to employment opportunities should also be replicated in the provision of housing.

More details about Rep ID: 12340

Representation ID: 12040

OBJECT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

We would support the Joint Local Plan allocating more than enough land to meet the
forecast needs to enable more choice in the market and give flexibility to changing
circumstances.

The Councils will need to be careful to ensure that they do not sterilise land
over the long-term that is capable of being brought forward for other uses. There being a long history of proposed employment sites generally that have ended up being rolled forward from one Local Plan to another, and remain undeveloped many years later. Vital that in determining their future employment allocation locations, the Councils pay adequate regard to market demand.

More details about Rep ID: 12040

Representation ID: 11820

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

Summary:

It is notable that the approach being prescribed relative to employment development is markedly different to the approach identified for residential development. In particular the Reg 18 publication suggests for residential development to identify only the minimum amount of housing required within the District based on OAN. The approach with regard to employment is to suggest that allocations above the identified employment requirement should be pursued, yet at the same time the document recognises that substantial amounts of existing allocated employment land remains undeveloped. This is a clear contradiction in approach.

More details about Rep ID: 11820

Representation ID: 11710

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

Summary:

We consider that the Councils should allocate additional land to meet the forecast employment need. This would ensure that there are sufficient employment opportunities in the Districts are provided to meet the housing growth proposed.

More details about Rep ID: 11710

Representation ID: 11695

OBJECT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Given the substantial excess of employment land already available over the forecast needs, I consider that further land does not need to be allocated.

More details about Rep ID: 11695

Representation ID: 11642

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

The Councils' preferred approach under Option ECON2 is to allocate more land than that required to meet the jobs growth forecast by the East of England Forecasting model. The Councils will need to be careful to ensure that they do not sterilise land over the long-term that is capable of being brought forward for other uses. There being a long history of proposed employment sites generally that have ended up being rolled forward from one Local Plan to another, and remain undeveloped many years later.

More details about Rep ID: 11642

Representation ID: 11486

SUPPORT Ichiban Sushi and Woolpit Business Parks represented by Trilogie CRE (Mr Roland Browning)

Summary:

Strongly support - This will allow scope for new business investment without constraining growth of existing Employers within the district. If existing substantial businesses have to relocate to grow, the capital investment (caused by the relocation) is prohibitive and new investment leading to new jobs and uplifted productivity will be heavily constrained.

More details about Rep ID: 11486

Representation ID: 11434

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS would be wary of allocating more employment land than is forecast to be required, especially as brownfield retail and retail warehouse sites may start to become available as internet shopping reduces the demand for retail floorspace.

More details about Rep ID: 11434

Representation ID: 11122

OBJECT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

The Council does not see the argument for identifying more land for commercial development. Whilst the Council recognises the need for flexibility, it believes that currently available land should have first call on usage before other land is considered, and should be protected accordingly, subject to context, environment and local impact.

More details about Rep ID: 11122

Representation ID: 11031

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that the District Councils should allocate more than enough land to meet the forecast needs to enable more choice in the market and give flexibility to changing circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 11031

Representation ID: 10801

SUPPORT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 10801

Representation ID: 10316

SUPPORT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

We agree with the Councils' initial preference of allocating more land than is required to meet the forecast jobs growth to ensure flexibility and choice in line with Option ECON2.
This would ensure that there are sufficient employment opportunities across both Districts to meet the demand.
As set out previously in this document, this approach to employment opportunities should also be replicated in the provision of housing.

More details about Rep ID: 10316

Representation ID: 9891

SUPPORT Dr Ian Russell

Summary:

Yes, the Sudbury infrastructure plan for roads should allow for this.

More details about Rep ID: 9891

Representation ID: 9859

OBJECT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 9859

Representation ID: 9729

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Only where there is significant development and local manpower. Land should not be allocated in inappropriate places such as near/in villages and hamlets which do not have this kind of facility already. It is inappropriate to continually add buildings to a settlement without restrictions. The choice of sites should be made by the Council and not be developers.

More details about Rep ID: 9729

Representation ID: 9447

OBJECT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Bacton has sufficient for present needs.

More details about Rep ID: 9447

Representation ID: 9051

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

more choice in the market and give flexibility to changing circumstances?
Yes. However, this should not be at the risk of impairing the integrity or the status of existing settlements. Reserve land can be used prior to any further allocation firstly.

More details about Rep ID: 9051

Representation ID: 8807

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

Yes - but with checks and balances to allow review as things change over time - eg to control over-loading any 1 area with more than is sustainable

More details about Rep ID: 8807

Representation ID: 8653

SUPPORT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

agreed

More details about Rep ID: 8653

Representation ID: 8426

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Refer to qtn. 33.

More details about Rep ID: 8426

Representation ID: 8390

SUPPORT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council suggests that the Planning Authority reviews the existing Employment Land Register and only includes land which is developable within 5 years. The Planning Authority should also maintain a Reserve Employment Land Register which is developable within 0 to 5 years. Each year an Annual Monitoring Report should review the employment land on the registers to ensure that they are still available and developable. The outcome of the Annual Monitoring Report should be used to ensure that the Employment Land Register provides for existing demand plus 15% in the areas where demand exists.

More details about Rep ID: 8390

Representation ID: 8184

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

Summary:

Allocate above the identified need.

More details about Rep ID: 8184

Representation ID: 8101

OBJECT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

no

More details about Rep ID: 8101

Representation ID: 7957

OBJECT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

* The JLP already is. A little spare capacity is good, a lot looks bad. Typically over provision in Ipswich left us with the wine rack by the marina. Do we want the district covered with half-finished developments?

More details about Rep ID: 7957

Representation ID: 7926

OBJECT Mr David Watts

Summary:

No because allocating land blights the prospects of nearby home owners selling their hopmes and reduces their value.

More details about Rep ID: 7926

Representation ID: 7679

OBJECT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Given the substantial excess of employment land already available over the forecast needs, we consider that further land does not need to be allocated.

More details about Rep ID: 7679

Representation ID: 7528

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

No.

More details about Rep ID: 7528

Representation ID: 7257

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

If over allocating this may lead to over development.

More details about Rep ID: 7257

Representation ID: 6724

OBJECT Yaxley Parish Council (Mr Philip Freeman)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 6724

Representation ID: 6604

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council supports this but with good geographical coverage.

More details about Rep ID: 6604

Representation ID: 6532

OBJECT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

No as plenty already allocated

More details about Rep ID: 6532

Representation ID: 6507

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

no

More details about Rep ID: 6507

Representation ID: 6221

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

Yes, this is a wise approach, necessary to minimise the vaguaries of the market.

More details about Rep ID: 6221

Representation ID: 6053

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

Yes, some but not in perpetuity, the economic scene is changing rapidly and any policy must reflect this. The growth in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics are cases in point.

More details about Rep ID: 6053

Representation ID: 5965

SUPPORT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes Yes

More details about Rep ID: 5965

Representation ID: 5908

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes, need to identify employer needs.

More details about Rep ID: 5908

Representation ID: 5878

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Yes. However, this should not be at the risk of impairing the integrity or the status of existing settlements. Reserve land can be used prior to any further allocation firstly.

More details about Rep ID: 5878

Representation ID: 5778

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

Yes, with particular emphasis on the requirements of growing sectors of the economy.

More details about Rep ID: 5778

Representation ID: 5736

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

Recognition of home based working needed and availability of small sites to accommodate 'white van man'.

More details about Rep ID: 5736

Representation ID: 5587

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Yes.

More details about Rep ID: 5587

Representation ID: 5354

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Babergh should not allocate more land than needed to meet the forecast needs because the data is usually an overestimate of the needs

More details about Rep ID: 5354

Representation ID: 5036

SUPPORT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

support above anticipated growth

More details about Rep ID: 5036

Representation ID: 4930

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

Should be market driven

More details about Rep ID: 4930

Representation ID: 4720

OBJECT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 4720

Representation ID: 4661

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Yes, some but not in perpetuity, the economic scene is changing rapidly and any policy must reflect this. The growth in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics are cases in point.

More details about Rep ID: 4661

Representation ID: 4499

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

Babergh should not allocate more land than needed to meet the forecast needs because the data is usually an overestimate of the needs, therefore, ECON1 is the appropriate option.

More details about Rep ID: 4499

Representation ID: 4268

COMMENT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

* The JLP already is. A little spare capacity is good, a lot looks bad.
* Typically overprovision in Ipswich left us with the wine rack by the marina.
* Do we want the district covered with half-finished developments?

More details about Rep ID: 4268

Representation ID: 4262

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

No. Allocations should only be made against proven need. Forecasts are usually wrong.

More details about Rep ID: 4262

Representation ID: 4222

OBJECT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

No

More details about Rep ID: 4222

Representation ID: 3917

COMMENT Mr Richard Fletcher

Summary:

Sufficient employment land to meet the growth forecast by the East of England Forecasting Model must be the target in the Local Plan. To allocate or identify less land will restrict employer location options and impede the hoped/planned for provision of employment opportunities.

More details about Rep ID: 3917

Representation ID: 3907

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

Summary:

In line with advice in the NPPF, and based upon the technical evidence prepared to support and justify the draft local plan, 2.9ha of employment land should be allocated in the new plan. There is no evidence to support the allocation of more land for employment either for the 'continuing need for employment land beyond the plan period' or to 'ensure that there is scope for more land to be available should more employment be created than forecast'.

More details about Rep ID: 3907

Representation ID: 3468

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

The Parish Council recognises the difficulties that MSDC is faced with when trying to plan for the future 18 years in the Local Plan and , as such would accept flexibility in any proposed plan. This must however be accompanied by caution and the circumstances for this 'flexibility' must be clearly defined for all parties to ensure consistency and fairness should any deviation from the Local Plan be considered.

More details about Rep ID: 3468

Representation ID: 3449

SUPPORT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

Yes, flexibility and adaptability will be key in the coming years. A modest surfeit would seem sensible.

More details about Rep ID: 3449

Representation ID: 3258

SUPPORT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

With good geographical spread

More details about Rep ID: 3258

Representation ID: 2920

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 the allocation of land will be considered in association with the selection of sites for accommodating planned housing growth.

More details about Rep ID: 2920

Representation ID: 2637

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council maintains that more land should initially be identified but that this must be subject to the environment and infrastructure availability.

More details about Rep ID: 2637

Representation ID: 2600

COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)

Summary:

It is considered that enough employment land to meet the jobs growth forecast by the East of England Forecasting Model ought be the target in the Local Plan-such allocation will also give a good range of options for employer location.

More details about Rep ID: 2600

Representation ID: 2290

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

This is probably a good strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 2290

Representation ID: 2233

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Yes we should

More details about Rep ID: 2233

Representation ID: 2145

OBJECT Capel St Mary Parish Council (Mrs Julie Lawes)

Summary:

No. We should only allocate what is needed.

More details about Rep ID: 2145

Representation ID: 2109

COMMENT Mr & Mrs M Baker represented by Boyer Planning (Paige Harris)

Summary:

We support option ECON2. Allowing more employment land will hopefully ensure economic growth will be supported into the future. Only allocating enough employment land to meet identified employment need (ECON2) may result in a potential lack of supply if job growth increases faster than is forecast. This approach would create a slow and more reactive approach.

Allowing more choice of employment land allows flexibility and choice within the Districts, and sends a strong and positive message that economic growth is supported in the Districts

More details about Rep ID: 2109

Representation ID: 1938

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Yes. But not more than double the forecast need and spread across all potential locations.

More details about Rep ID: 1938

Representation ID: 1890

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

The council should be able to respond to any reasonable development of an economic enterprise anywhere within its area. As many businesses begin in the home the next stage is finding suitable low cost accommodation to develop. The council should consider maintaining a list of redundant or surplus agricultural or industrial buildings or the fringe areas of former airfields that could be used together with property owned by civil parishes such as parish halls that could be adapted to accommodate developing enterprises until they are ready to re-locate to purpose built premises.

More details about Rep ID: 1890

Representation ID: 1835

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

No comment - not enough knowledge.

More details about Rep ID: 1835

Representation ID: 1574

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Yes

More details about Rep ID: 1574

Representation ID: 1152

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Agreed

More details about Rep ID: 1152

Representation ID: 292

SUPPORT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

I agree

More details about Rep ID: 292

Representation ID: 213

OBJECT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Could lead to a scattering of development rather than concentrating it in defined areas

More details about Rep ID: 213

Representation ID: 123

OBJECT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

No. To do so would be to make assumptions about the likely requirements for new businesses and industries at a time when their profiles are radically changing. Choice and flexibility would be much better provided for by responding to the ideas and expressed needs of entrepreneurs as they appear.

More details about Rep ID: 123

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

Powered by OpusConsult