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) - Q40

Representation ID: 13017

COMMENT Ipswich Borough Council (

Summary:

Employment growth needs to be delivered in the right locations and offices in particular within town centres, as supported by the National Planning Policy Framework.

More details about Rep ID: 13017

Representation ID: 12870

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

Summary:

A positive, proactive and supportive approach should be adopted. Our clients success in letting former agricultural barns to businesses at Park Farm Barns provides evidence of the commercial demand for business accommodation in this location. As indicated in the Ipswich Economic Area Sector Needs Assessment, the focus going forward should be on provision of high quality business accommodation with a range of out of town and semi-rural locations within easy access of the key markets of the ports, Ipswich and transport corridors of the A14 and A12.

It is important to provide sites which provide ease of access and a range of unit sizes attractive to both startĀ­up businesses and those looking to expand and/or relocate. Our clients land and future plans offer the opportunity to deliver just the kind of high quality business accommodation which the Economic Needs Assessment advocates.

More details about Rep ID: 12870

Representation ID: 12363

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

Summary:

We continue to the support the provision of additional employment land but propose that these allocations should also seek to formalise existing employment sites in the Districts which are at present not recognised within the Local Plan. We suggest that in addition to the provision of employment opportunities on a regional scale through growth of Felixstowe and the 'Ipswich Northern Route' project, additional employment land should be spread across the District where they will support local scale demands for employment, as well as the sustainability and continued vitality of smaller settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 12363

Representation ID: 12041

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

Summary:

In the opinion of Bloor Homes (Eastern), the land to the south west of Needham
Road, Stowmarket (SHELAA Site SS0436) can accommodate some limited mixeduse
development in association with a larger residential scheme. There is already a
significant amount of employment land at Cedars Park (10.9 hectares) and Mill Lane
(39.5 hectares) Stowmarket and in view of the pressing need to find additional
housing land our clients proposals would not prejudice some employment provision.
Further details regarding this are set out in our response to Questions 78 and 79.

More details about Rep ID: 12041

Representation ID: 11715

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

Summary:

SS0773 should be allocated for additional employment land. It would allow for growth of the company and support an existing local business in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 22. Site is located in a sustainable location in respect of transport links and the A14, which would reduce the need to travel. Allocation would act as enabling development, allowing for the potential removal of the former employment site located south of Haughley Park House to allow for the former factory site to return to 'greenfield land', further elaborated in Section 3 of this document.

More details about Rep ID: 11715

Representation ID: 11703

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

Summary:

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.

Councils should look to include specific text within a policy to reflect what would be an acceptable period that vacant sites should be marketed for. E.g. a period of 6 months, should be required in order to demonstrate that there is no demand for employment use.

More details about Rep ID: 11703

Representation ID: 11697

COMMENT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

Any allocation of additional employment land should be in the Ipswich fringe area where there is a demand.

More details about Rep ID: 11697

Representation ID: 11643

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

Summary:

We have submitted a separate representation on behalf of Bloor Homes (Eastern), which proposes that land to the south west of Needham Road, Stowmarket (SHELAA Site SS0436) is fully capable of being a mixed-use allocation.

More details about Rep ID: 11643

Representation ID: 11488

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

Summary:

The consultee strongly supports the allocation for SS0792, to support the expansion of the successful and growing existing business, which in turn will facilitate employment growth and business investment in an existing business location.

More details about Rep ID: 11488

Representation ID: 11125

COMMENT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Any expansion or allocation of additional employment land should be on sites with good transport links and should have full Parish Council approval. This will be essential to minimise the impact of commercial traffic movements, especially lorries/HGVs, on the already inadequate road infrastructure in and around Rattlesden and, hence, it is better placed very close to main trunk roads. Essentially, the Parish Council is against any economic expansion where this would result directly in increased HGV activity in the village.

More details about Rep ID: 11125

Representation ID: 11051

COMMENT Mr C. Voetmann represented by Savills (Rachael Morey)

Summary:

There are substantial amount of employment areas which are well established commercial sites in more rural locations. Appropriate for policies to recognise and acknowledge the importance that such areas have.

Imperative that Councils allocate new employment land to meet housing growth.

As with the approach to new residential development, it is essential that Local Planning Authorities provide for a range of sites in a range of locations and in the context where Mendlesham Industrial Estate is an established employment site providing important local employment, it is appropriate in such circumstances to seek to allocate an expansion of such sites to maintain a constant supply of potential new employment sites across the district.

More details about Rep ID: 11051

Representation ID: 11037

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council believes that this should be considered in line with the Local Economic Strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 11037

Representation ID: 10994

COMMENT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

Sites for specific type of business need to be close to key resources or infrastructure. Access to major routes is important. Sites close to the A14 are preferable but to date have been allocated for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 10994

Representation ID: 10803

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Only on sites with good transport links that are readily accessible by all.
Close to larger housing centres with good access

More details about Rep ID: 10803

Representation ID: 10071

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

We have no comments on the suggested spatial approach to employment locations
and developments, although care will need to be taken to avoid sites that harm the
significance of heritage assets.

More details about Rep ID: 10071

Representation ID: 9893

SUPPORT Dr Ian Russell

Summary:

To the east of Sudbury, as provided for in the infrastructure plan for roads.

More details about Rep ID: 9893

Representation ID: 9731

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

Near existing centres of research, engineering etc. This would allow interaction between research and development. Examples of this type of development are taking place in Cambridge and Norwich.

More details about Rep ID: 9731

Representation ID: 9449

COMMENT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

Any larger scale employment sites must be near the A road network.

More details about Rep ID: 9449

Representation ID: 9059

SUPPORT David Black & Sons Ltd. (Mr. James Black)

Summary:

When this relates to meeting the needs of existing businesses and space allows, then extending the availability appears to be the sensible approach. An example of this would be the Red House Farm Business units at Bacton as per the attached plan.

More details about Rep ID: 9059

Representation ID: 9055

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Review what is already allocated - How long has it been undeveloped and could it meet other needs better.

More details about Rep ID: 9055

Representation ID: 8655

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

Micro and small businesses should be supported and encouraged across the district including in rural areas, small villages and hamlets.

More details about Rep ID: 8655

Representation ID: 8431

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Refer to 33.
In practice, sites for specific type of business need to be close to key resources or infrastructure. Access to major routes is important for many manufacturers. Sites close to the A14 would thus be preferable for industrial premises but to date these sites have been allocated for housing.

More details about Rep ID: 8431

Representation ID: 8397

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

Large employment opportunities should be located in the Functional Economic Area (FEA) and Economic sub areas identified within the report.
Subject to suitable access, small and medium sized enterprises might also be located around Core Villages.

More details about Rep ID: 8397

Representation ID: 8195

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

Summary:

Not required

More details about Rep ID: 8195

Representation ID: 8105

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

Additional employment sites should be located adjacent to trunk roads wherever possible to avoid extra traffic, especially large vehicles on rural lanes.

More details about Rep ID: 8105

Representation ID: 7964

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

I consider there is already a significant oversupply other than strategically located sites.

More details about Rep ID: 7964

Representation ID: 7681

COMMENT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Any allocation of additional employment land should be in the Ipswich fringe area where there is a demand.

More details about Rep ID: 7681

Representation ID: 6609

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Yes. Where adequate infrastructure is provided.

More details about Rep ID: 6609

Representation ID: 6539

OBJECT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q40 don't need more at present

More details about Rep ID: 6539

Representation ID: 6519

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Use of redundant farm buildings in rural areas

More details about Rep ID: 6519

Representation ID: 6056

SUPPORT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

See answer to Q39 and in the more urban areas of Sudbury and Hadleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 6056

Representation ID: 5970

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

LWPC believes that additional employment land should be on the outskirts of market towns and core villages.

More details about Rep ID: 5970

Representation ID: 5911

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Out of town.

More details about Rep ID: 5911

Representation ID: 5883

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Review what is already allocated - How long has it been undeveloped and could it meet other needs better.

More details about Rep ID: 5883

Representation ID: 5781

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

At existing industrial estates and where there is the demand.

More details about Rep ID: 5781

Representation ID: 5590

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

Don't know.

More details about Rep ID: 5590

Representation ID: 5356

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

Any expansion of employment land should only be undertaken for exceptional reasons

More details about Rep ID: 5356

Representation ID: 4937

COMMENT Nedging with Naughton Parish Council (Miss LYNN ALLUM)

Summary:

Close to existing areas of population.

More details about Rep ID: 4937

Representation ID: 4730

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Where there is identified need.

More details about Rep ID: 4730

Representation ID: 4665

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

See answer to Q39 and in the more urban areas of Sudbury and Hadleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 4665

Representation ID: 4272

OBJECT Mr John Bellwood

Summary:

none should be allocated

More details about Rep ID: 4272

Representation ID: 4269

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

In conurbations.

More details about Rep ID: 4269

Representation ID: 4215

COMMENT Mrs Sheila Hurdwell

Summary:

Where it is needed or will benefit communities and is well serviced by the necessary infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 4215

Representation ID: 3690

OBJECT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

No allocation should be made.

More details about Rep ID: 3690

Representation ID: 3471

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

Again it is the Parish Council's view that any expansion of employment land should only be undertaken for exceptional reasons and we reiterate our view that ECON1 is our favoured model. Sufficient land has been identified in the consultation document and it should only be due to a change in circumstances that non B1 class industry would be considered in any other than the 2 sites already identified. Any expansion of the current provision should centre on transport corridors and perhaps on existing brown field sites. An industry/employment SHELAA would assist with this exercise.

More details about Rep ID: 3471

Representation ID: 3452

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

This would depend very much upon why you want to expand and what market you are trying to support.

More details about Rep ID: 3452

Representation ID: 3260

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Dependent on local need

More details about Rep ID: 3260

Representation ID: 3005

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

It should be made easier to convert existing redundant buildings in rural areas to accommodate small businesses/ industries

More details about Rep ID: 3005

Representation ID: 2925

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

Summary:

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

Proposals will be brought forward at the appropriate time.

More details about Rep ID: 2925

Representation ID: 2639

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council believes this should be on sites with good transport links and that any allocation must have full parish council endorsement.

More details about Rep ID: 2639

Representation ID: 2603

COMMENT Hadleigh Society (Margaret Woods)

Summary:

New employment land ought be centred upon good road links to the main national network and/or the districts principal urban centres - the areas besides being locate in adjoining main towns and villages should also be based around disused rural and/or old industrial buildings set within the countryside which posses good transport links.

More details about Rep ID: 2603

Representation ID: 2292

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

Brownfield sites should be used.

More details about Rep ID: 2292

Representation ID: 2235

COMMENT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

Along the A14 corridor and on the edge of towns

More details about Rep ID: 2235

Representation ID: 1940

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Where it is needed or will benefit communities and is well serviced by the necessary infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 1940

Representation ID: 1891

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

Most of the additional employment land should be in the north of the area to bring back employment opportunities to all parts, but that can only be achieved if housing development is permitted in all areas. Allow employment where people want to work rather than tell people where you expect them to work.

More details about Rep ID: 1891

Representation ID: 1837

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

No comment - not enough knowledge.

More details about Rep ID: 1837

Representation ID: 1576

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Along old A14

More details about Rep ID: 1576

Representation ID: 1261

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Only within major towns.

More details about Rep ID: 1261

Representation ID: 1154

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

Alongside existing traffic corridor wherever possible

More details about Rep ID: 1154

Representation ID: 1002

COMMENT Mr Roy Barker

Summary:

on the HGV traffic roads

More details about Rep ID: 1002

Representation ID: 815

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

Summary:

The Eye Industrial Estate

More details about Rep ID: 815

Representation ID: 294

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

Not required

More details about Rep ID: 294

Representation ID: 214

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Large disused industrial areas or redundant Government land

More details about Rep ID: 214

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

Powered by OpusConsult