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) - Q51

Representation ID: 13187

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

Summary:

With regards to these two Options presented, we support BIO 1. This enables the protection of designated sites, protected species and habitats. This also ensures that new development provides appropriate protection to protected habitats and species without causing a great burden or the prevention of the delivery of development.

More details about Rep ID: 13187

Representation ID: 12970

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

BIO2 supported with reservations.
The concept of linking biodiversity at a landscape level in the context section is encouraging. Too often green corridors are nothing but a narrow footpath. One concern is that the 2012 Babergh Green Infrastructure Strategy is completely out of date. It also fails to recognise that most of Babergh is private land without public access. Biodiversity often only comes to notice once access to public or detailed surveys are undertaken.
We would recommend much more robust and critical assessment of SUDS on new developments feeding into river valleys and Flood plains

More details about Rep ID: 12970

Representation ID: 12922

COMMENT Suffolk County Council (Mr. Robert Feakes)

Summary:

In 2014 the County Council adopted the Suffolk Nature Strategy which sets out a number of recommendations, some of which are directly relevant to Local Plans.
*Recommendation 5 states that in line with the National Planning Policy Framework, developers should include design elements that protect and enhance wildlife within new developments. Plans should complement and enhance wider ecological networks, such as actively supporting the management and design of existing and new green spaces.
*Recommendation 22, where impacts cannot be fully mitigated, states that Biodiversity offsetting must follow Government guidelines and the mitigation hierarchy, set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 152,176). Offsetting should only occur when all steps to avoid and mitigate impacts have been exhausted and should not be seen as a licence to damage sites where less damaging alternatives exist. Offsetting should not apply to internationally or nationally designated sites. Following the mitigation hierarchy is an important process that Local Planning Authorities should routinely expect developers to follow.

More details about Rep ID: 12922

Representation ID: 12661

COMMENT Environment Agency (Miss Charlie Christensen)

Summary:

We are supportive of policy BIO 2. This is the only option that will help protect the small number of high quality wildlife sites in the District from increasing recreational pressure, light and noise pollution and traffic disturbance

More details about Rep ID: 12661

Representation ID: 12505

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

Summary:

With regards to these two Options presented, we support BIO 1. This enables the protection of designated sites, protected species and habitats. This also ensures that new development provides appropriate protection to protected habitats and species without causing a great burden or the prevention of the delivery of development.

More details about Rep ID: 12505

Representation ID: 12411

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

We have areas of significant scientific interest and therefore we agree with option Bio2.

More details about Rep ID: 12411

Representation ID: 12348

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

Summary:

We support BIO 1. This enables protection of designated sites, protected species and habitats. This also ensures that new development provides appropriate protection to protected habitats and species without causing a great burden or the prevention of the delivery of development.

More details about Rep ID: 12348

Representation ID: 12109

COMMENT Gladman (Mr Richard Crosthwaite)

Summary:

The Plan should aim to include development management policies that reflect the requirements set out in Section 7 of the Framework. Any policy that is proposed to protect environmental assets should be in line with national policy set out in the Framework. Generally, the level of protection accorded to a particular asset should be commensurate with its status. The relative benefits and harm associated with requirements of such policies should then be taken into account when
determining planning applications.

More details about Rep ID: 12109

Representation ID: 12001

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Pegasus Group (Jamie Roberts)

Summary:

We consider option BIO2 to be the most appropriate approach to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. Paragraph 118 of the Framework explains that development should seek to achieve net gains in biodiversity and option BIO2 is consistent with this objective. New development presents the opportunity to achieve gains in biodiversity through the creation of new habitat and landscaping as well as other interventions such as provision of bat and bird boxes.

More details about Rep ID: 12001

Representation ID: 11809

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

*Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, cherished view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years' experience and often considerable efforts by communities, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare species. They preserve the best of our environment & any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience and effort in favour of financial considerations.
*A point overlooked is the sequence of Landscape Character designations that run down from The Holliday Inn, through Chantry Vale and Sproughton and into the Gipping Valley. There is only one other place in Suffolk with the same combination and that is Dedham Vale which is designated as an Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB). Does anyone know of a famous local artist?

More details about Rep ID: 11809

Representation ID: 11718

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

Summary:

We support BIO 1, this enables the protection of designated sites, protected species and habitats. This also ensures that new development provides appropriate protection to protected habitats and species. It is recognised that species and habitats must be protected however development must also be enabled to ensure economic sustainability and the provision of housing and employment opportunities to meet the Districts' needs.

More details about Rep ID: 11718

Representation ID: 11698

SUPPORT Lady Valerie Hart

Summary:

I support option BIO 2 over option BIO 1.

More details about Rep ID: 11698

Representation ID: 11612

COMMENT South Suffolk Constituency Labour Party (Ms Emma Bishton)

Summary:

We are aware of very significant concerns by local experts about the impact of
existing local developments on environments rich in biodiversity and the decline
of protected species. Requirements to protect biodiversity should be
strengthened.

More details about Rep ID: 11612

Representation ID: 11505

COMMENT Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )

Summary:

GCPC preference is for Option BIO 2. It is essential to highlight the need to protect and enhance designations, habitats and species.

More details about Rep ID: 11505

Representation ID: 11442

COMMENT Greenways Countryside Project Partnership (Mr. James Baker)

Summary:

Strong support for option BIO2. In order to attempt to meet national biodiversity targets and the aim of no net loss of diversity as a result of built development, enhancement of habitats and ecological networks will be vital. Protection of sites is the necessary first stage, but on its own is unlikely to achieve sustainable results.

More details about Rep ID: 11442

Representation ID: 11248

OBJECT Suffolk Wildlife Trust (Mr James Meyer)

Summary:

Option BIO1 is not NPPF compliant. Option BIO2 is better but requires greater emphasis on protecting County Wildlife Sites and UK Priority species.

More details about Rep ID: 11248

Representation ID: 11128

COMMENT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

As a rural community, Rattlesden Parish Council supports the protection of designations, habitats and species.

More details about Rep ID: 11128

Representation ID: 11057

COMMENT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council feels that BIO2 would be the preferred option.

More details about Rep ID: 11057

Representation ID: 10999

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

Summary:

JLP talks of linking biodiversity at a landscape scale which is encouraging; the strategy is to protect the main wildlife sites from recreational disturbance and mitigation measures. However as SSSI and AONB have national protection policies it is primarily the locally designated sites to be considered.

Option BIO2 appears, with some reservations, to be the better option. The concept of linking biodiversity at a landscape level in the context section is encouraging. Too often green corridors are nothing but a narrow footpath. Concern that 2012 Babergh Green Infrastructure Strategy is completely out of date. Fails to recognise most of Babergh is private land without public access. Biodiversity often only comes to notice once access to public or detailed surveys are undertaken.

More details about Rep ID: 10999

Representation ID: 10815

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

BIO 2 preferred.

More details about Rep ID: 10815

Representation ID: 10663

OBJECT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

No- land that has not already been developed should not be developed.

More details about Rep ID: 10663

Representation ID: 10340

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

With regards to these two Options presented, we support BIO 1. This enables the protection of designated sites, protected species and habitats. This also ensures that new development provides appropriate protection to protected habitats and species without causing a great burden or the prevention of the delivery of development.

More details about Rep ID: 10340

Representation ID: 9862

COMMENT Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey)

Summary:

BIO1 should be a given covered by the NPPF and other legislation. A policy based on Option BIO2 should be included in the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 9862

Representation ID: 9745

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

I prefer Option BIO2 as it includes the 'enhancement' of the areas. In no way should these areas be encroached upon and if development takes place nearby then this should not impinge on the habitat and biodiversity of the designated area.

More details about Rep ID: 9745

Representation ID: 9594

COMMENT Mrs Mel Seager

Summary:

Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, cherished view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years experience and often considerable efforts by communities, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare species. They preserve the best of our environment & any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience and effort in favour of financial considerations.
A point overlooked is the sequence of Landscape Character designations that run down from The Holiday Inn, through Chantry Vale and Sproughton and into the Gipping Valley. There is only one other place in Suffolk with the same combination and that is Dedham Vale which is designated as AONB.

More details about Rep ID: 9594

Representation ID: 9559

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

If we have existing sites of Bio interest, we should protect them to ensure they are unchanged by what we do elsewhere.
That includes the impact of housing where a local bio area may become an "attractive" recreation area.

Furthermore, as productive Agricultural land is concreted over, food production will have to intensify further. This will have an impact on a wide range of areas not just the Bio ones.

A simple thing such as the installation of street lighting can have a detrimental effect on a few species but potentially affects a vast number in a complex food chain.

More details about Rep ID: 9559

Representation ID: 9455

SUPPORT Bacton Parish Council (mrs tina newell)

Summary:

We support BIO2 as it provides better protection for biodiversity.

More details about Rep ID: 9455

Representation ID: 9346

COMMENT Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell)

Summary:

Nayland with Wissington Parish Council supports Policy Option BIO 2-
Through this policy, designated sites, its protected species and habitats will be protected through an inter-authority approach to enhancement. The Council agrees that all development should provide protected but that further enhancement for the network of habitats and biodiversity be applied where identified.

More details about Rep ID: 9346

Representation ID: 9203

COMMENT Mr Ken Seager

Summary:

Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, cherished view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years experience and often considerable efforts by communities, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare species. They preserve the best of our environment & any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience and effort in favour of financial considerations.
A point overlooked is the sequence of Landscape Character designations that run down from The Holiday Inn, through Chantry Vale and Sproughton and into the Gipping Valley. There is only one other place in Suffolk with the same combination and that is Dedham Vale which is designated as an Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB).

More details about Rep ID: 9203

Representation ID: 9171

COMMENT J D Pickett

Summary:

Designated sites, habitats and species need to protected and enhanced as per Option BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 9171

Representation ID: 9058

COMMENT Onehouse Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Option BIO 1

More details about Rep ID: 9058

Representation ID: 8871

COMMENT Mr Simon Pearce

Summary:

Strong views. Woolverstone is one of several villages located on the Shotley peninsula. Much of the peninsula is covered by a designated AONB and as such protects the natural habitat. Within this there are SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR sites. The ecology of this whole area is an integral part of the unique Suffolk Coast and Heaths and should be treated as such in the development of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk local plan. This peninsula should be treated as an integral part of Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. It is extraordinary that it is not.

More details about Rep ID: 8871

Representation ID: 8817

COMMENT Mr Philip Schofield

Summary:

BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 8817

Representation ID: 8683

COMMENT The Woodland Trust (Mr Nick Sandford)

Summary:

Ancient woodland is irreplaceable and should be given the strongest possible level of protection.

More trees and woods should be planted to benefit local people and make landscapes more resilient

More details about Rep ID: 8683

Representation ID: 8659

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

As a minimum all sites should be protected but we prefer the enhanced protection of BIO 2

More details about Rep ID: 8659

Representation ID: 8629

SUPPORT Mendham Parish Council (Mr Denis Pye)

Summary:

BIO2 supported. It would give opportunity to enhance and improve environments

More details about Rep ID: 8629

Representation ID: 8573

SUPPORT Woolpit Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

Yes. We agree that the councils' preferred Option BIO2 should be chosen. The inter-authority approach to enhancement, and enhancements for the network of habitats and biodiversity, would allow for wildlife corridors to be established to mitigate against the effects of climate change.

More details about Rep ID: 8573

Representation ID: 8486

SUPPORT Woolpit Parish Council (Mrs Peggy Fuller)

Summary:

support BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 8486

Representation ID: 8472

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Agree with option BIO 2 to protect and enhance designated sites, habitats and species.

More details about Rep ID: 8472

Representation ID: 8403

COMMENT Acton Parish Council (Mr Paul MacLachlan)

Summary:

The Council favours Option BIO2.

More details about Rep ID: 8403

Representation ID: 8276

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

Summary:

BIO 2 should be pursued to continue to improve biodiversity.

More details about Rep ID: 8276

Representation ID: 8260

COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)

Summary:

A collective inter-authority approach as stated for BIO 2 should be also include ECC where development proposals could impact across administrative boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 8260

Representation ID: 8179

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

The reference to 'appropriate' in BIO2 is unclear and worrying especially in contrast to comments on 'public advantages outweighing any adverse biodiversity impact'.

More details about Rep ID: 8179

Representation ID: 8118

COMMENT Tattingstone Parish Council (mrs Jane Connell-Smith)

Summary:

We would support option BIO2. Tattingstone Parish Council believe that support for Special Protection areas and AONBs should be strengthened.

More details about Rep ID: 8118

Representation ID: 7869

COMMENT Green Light Trust (Mr Ashley Seaborne)

Summary:

GLT is disappointed the Plan deals scantily with this important topic, crucial to all development discussions. Wildlife and biodiversity is threatened throughout the UK. In Lawshall this trend is being reversed. Bird, butterfly, plant surveys in community and ancient woodlands demonstrates that biodiversity is increasing (Lawshall NP Appendix 2). We urge Planners to consider our answers Questions 13 and 75. It isn't possible to vote for 2 Options given. Detail is needed on Option BIO 2 showing how 'inter authority approach to enhancement' would work on the ground, be flexible to retain the ability to consider each biodiversity area individually.

More details about Rep ID: 7869

Representation ID: 7778

COMMENT Mr John Ambrose

Summary:

It is considered that Option BIO 2 is over prescriptive.

More details about Rep ID: 7778

Representation ID: 7682

SUPPORT Chilton Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

We support option BIO 2 over option BIO 1.

More details about Rep ID: 7682

Representation ID: 7611

COMMENT Mrs Annette Brennand

Summary:

BIO2 is preferable.

More details about Rep ID: 7611

Representation ID: 7465

COMMENT Dr DAVID Brennand

Summary:

BIO2 appears the better option.

More details about Rep ID: 7465

Representation ID: 7445

COMMENT Ms Sharon Maxwell

Summary:

It is imperative to maintain green areas in villages. This protects wildlife, habitats and viewpoints to enhance and sustain the quality of the local landscape.

More details about Rep ID: 7445

Representation ID: 7405

SUPPORT Mr Mark Blackwell

Summary:

the more protection the better. If developers complain that it then becomes unviable due to cost then compulsory purchase sites for allow individual plot development by locals.

More details about Rep ID: 7405

Representation ID: 7304

COMMENT Great Waldingfield PC (Mr Cecil Allard)

Summary:

Fully support BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 7304

Representation ID: 7090

COMMENT Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples)

Summary:

The Parish Council supports Option BIO2 - protection and enhancement of designations, habitats and species.
However there needs to be policies in place to not only improve and enhance the quality of priority habitats not only within protected but also outside of protected sites

More details about Rep ID: 7090

Representation ID: 7064

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

BIO1 please.

More details about Rep ID: 7064

Representation ID: 6730

SUPPORT Mr Alan Lewis

Summary:

Prefer BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 6730

Representation ID: 6618

COMMENT Denham Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Denham Parish Council supports BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 6618

Representation ID: 6578

SUPPORT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q51 Support Option BIO 2 - must always protect and enhance.

More details about Rep ID: 6578

Representation ID: 6553

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Freston is one of several villages located on the Shotley peninsula. Much of the peninsula is covered by a designated AONB and as such protects the natural habitat. Within this there are SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR sites. The ecology of this whole area is an integral part of the unique Suffolk Coast and Heaths and should be treated as such in the development of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk local plan. This peninsula should therefore theoretically be treated as an integral part of Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of outstanding Natural Beauty.

More details about Rep ID: 6553

Representation ID: 6445

SUPPORT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

BIO 2

More details about Rep ID: 6445

Representation ID: 6384

COMMENT Stowmarket Society (Mr Michael Smith)

Summary:

We agree that option Bio2 is more ambitious and desirable.

More details about Rep ID: 6384

Representation ID: 6289

SUPPORT Mr Simon Williams

Summary:

Bio2 provides the better protection.

More details about Rep ID: 6289

Representation ID: 6198

COMMENT Endurance Estates represented by Savills (Mr Paul Rowland)

Summary:

Whilst every opportunity should be taken to achieve enhanced biodiversity any policy requiring such an approach should be qualified to ensure that the requirement for enhancement does not undermine viability or deliverability and not be used as a reason to refuse planning permission where all other considerations indicate an approval.
Policy for BIO2 should include criteria that limit the requirement for enhancement where this is beyond the control of the applicant, is disproportionate in relation to the scale of development or would seriously affect the viability of the development.

More details about Rep ID: 6198

Representation ID: 5973

COMMENT Mrs Claire Osborne

Summary:

Developers & landowners who clear a site of trees, hedgerows and wildlife habitats prior to submitting planning applications need to be heavily penalised. Ecological surveys carried out after site clearance has taken place should be dismissed as fraudulent. This is the only way to guarantee a fair assessment of the ecological value of a site. Please close the loophole.

More details about Rep ID: 5973

Representation ID: 5916

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

Yes. Option BI0 1. Adopt policy to support extension of AONB, particularly along River Stour in Little Cornard.

More details about Rep ID: 5916

Representation ID: 5887

COMMENT Mrs Nicky Willshere

Summary:

Option BIO 1

More details about Rep ID: 5887

Representation ID: 5784

SUPPORT Long Melford Parish Council (Mr Robert Wiliams)

Summary:

BIO 2 is preferred

More details about Rep ID: 5784

Representation ID: 5616

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

B102

More details about Rep ID: 5616

Representation ID: 5316

COMMENT Mrs Ann Hurst

Summary:

BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 5316

Representation ID: 5127

COMMENT Stradbroke Parish Council (Odile Wladon)

Summary:

BIO 1

More details about Rep ID: 5127

Representation ID: 5013

SUPPORT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

We would support BIO2 due to the limitations of the NPPF approach.

More details about Rep ID: 5013

Representation ID: 4876

COMMENT Mr Jeff Cribb

Summary:

Biodiversity is a critical element that defines our communities. It is essential that it is closely protected. I am particularly concerned that the Gipping Valley would be adversely affected (and its unique environment lost forever) during any developments of the Ipswich fringe if proper safeguards are not put in place. Please do not dilute the importance of SPA, SAC, SSSIs etc. In principle, BIO2 would appear preferable, provided this wasn't abused to 'enhance' a development i.e. focusing on a single element of an environment to the detriment of others.

More details about Rep ID: 4876

Representation ID: 4772

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Yes, very strong views. BIO2. Woolverstone is one of several villages located on the Shotley peninsula. Much of the peninsula is covered by a designated AONB and as such protects the natural habitat. Within this there are SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR sites. The ecology of this whole area is an integral part of the unique Suffolk Coast and Heaths and should be treated so in the development of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk local plan. This peninsula should therefore theoretically be treated as an integral part of Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB

More details about Rep ID: 4772

Representation ID: 4690

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

Agree to BIO 2

More details about Rep ID: 4690

Representation ID: 4602

COMMENT Barking Parish Council (Mrs Rosemary Cochrane)

Summary:

Support BIO 2 - important not to simply protect but to enhance designations, habitats and species where at all possible.
.

More details about Rep ID: 4602

Representation ID: 4503

COMMENT Kersey Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Partridge)

Summary:

The Parish Council consider that BIO2 is the best option to protect and enhance designations, habitats and species.

More details about Rep ID: 4503

Representation ID: 4460

COMMENT Neighbourhood Plan Team for Lawshall Parish Council (Mr Ric Edelman)

Summary:

An important feature of Lawshall is its rich biodiversity and wildlife. Regular wildlife surveys carried out by residents show that biodiversity is actually increasing rather than decreasing (see Appendix 2 Lawshall NP). Our answers to Question 13 above and question 75 below are given in part to protect and encourage this biodiversity increase. We will need to be provided with more detail before we can vote for Option BIO 1 or Option BIO 2. In theory an 'inter authority approach to enhancement' could prove excellent but how would it work in practice?

More details about Rep ID: 4460

Representation ID: 4444

COMMENT debbie ping

Summary:

Enhancement clearly preferable but biodiversity and wildlife issues must be
integral to all planning, not just a box to be ticked. Specifically all
sites need to be assessed independently and thoroughly for prsence of BAP
priority species, priority habitats, species diversity, and value as
wildlife corridors. It must be recognised that species are adapted to
particular habitats and can't simply be moved. Organisations where records
exist such as Suffolk Wildlife Trust, BTO, RSPB, Suffolk Community Barn Owl
Project, should be consulted. One example of good practise would be to require developers to build 'swift bricks' into houses.

More details about Rep ID: 4444

Representation ID: 4286

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

We prefer option BIO 1.

More details about Rep ID: 4286

Representation ID: 4250

OBJECT Mrs Jackie Ward

Summary:

BIO1 should be a given covered by the NPPF and other legislation. A policy based on Option BIO2 should be included in the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 4250

Representation ID: 4230

COMMENT Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Summary:

Agree with options BI02 to protect and enhance designated sites, habitats and species.

More details about Rep ID: 4230

Representation ID: 4026

SUPPORT West Suffolk (Mrs Amy Wright)

Summary:

West Suffolk supports an inter-authority approach to enhancement advocated by Option BIO 2.

More details about Rep ID: 4026

Representation ID: 3969

COMMENT RSPB Stour Estuary and Wolves Wood (Mr Mark Nowers)

Summary:

Suggested policy wording:

New development proposals will be expected to plan for the preservation and enhancement of existing biodiversity and, where appropriate to the scale of development, to include plans to restore and/or recreate priority habitats. Such biodiversity plans should be targeted towards the protection and recovery of local and national priority species. Proposals should also demonstrate how these plans can contribute to local ecological networks through the provision of habitat 'stepping stones' and /or wildlife corridors. Plans for biodiversity should be supported by a management plan and proposed financial sources covering the lifespan of the proposed development.

More details about Rep ID: 3969

Representation ID: 3701

COMMENT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

Support BIO2 if extra commitment/protection/enhancement inbuilt.
Reword = 'Protect designated sites/areas, protected species and priority habitats/species and local sites. Policy also delivers inter authority enhancement of all non-protected species/habitats. All development to provide protection as per Option 1 and enhance/connect of habitats and biodiversity at landscape scale'.

Both options totally underprovide for conserving/enhancing biodiversity. No development of existing semi- natural habitat should happen. To prevent deterioration of existing sites/species, must understand baseline status for all quality/quantity elements. Deterioration from the baseline not permissible. Increasing population increases disturbance and damage. Run-off from development if allowed, will contaminate the water table/watercourses.

More details about Rep ID: 3701

Representation ID: 3490

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

The Parish Council favoured BIO 2 because it provided greater protection to these precious sites particularly through a collective approach of neighbouring authorities. The Parish Council were however concerned that the working together of neighbouring councils appeared to be of a voluntary arrangement and that they were not mandated to arrive at this symbiotic relationship. The Parish Council also requested greater detail and clarity over exceptions whereby development might be allowed on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). It is our view that these should be protected unconditionally.

More details about Rep ID: 3490

Representation ID: 3473

COMMENT Mr John Kitson

Summary:

* BIO2 appears, with some reservations, to be the better option.
* The concept of linking biodiversity at a landscape level in the context section is encouraging. Too often green corridors are nothing but a narrow footpath.
* Most of Babergh is private land without public access. Biodiversity often only comes to notice once access to public or detailed surveys are undertaken. A prime example is Wolsey Grange where the Suffolk Biological Records Office had 5 recorded wildlife sightings in 20 years which is clearly farcical.
* Local area/spot designations like Special Landscape areas, view points, wildlife, flora and fauna reserves etc. have evolved from many years experience, sometimes based on fleeting observations of rare species. They preserve the best of our environment. Any policy that introduces a subjective opinion has the risk of overlooking years of experience.

More details about Rep ID: 3473

Representation ID: 3450

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Merry

Summary:

The scale of proposed development would greatly effect and destroy the wildlife habitats of many, proposed commerical/industrial sites that currently have all sorts of wildlife roaming free would be lost.
The Increased recreational disturbance would be massively extensive
How would commercial/industrial enhance the area
Developments suggested clearly would not outweigh what we would loose if they were allowed to go ahead
The disturbance and complete disruption to current residence and wildlife, with all the construction traffic would cause major issues.

More details about Rep ID: 3450

Representation ID: 3342

COMMENT Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples)

Summary:

Lindsey Parish Council prefers option BIO2 to make safe existing environments and enhance their development

More details about Rep ID: 3342

Representation ID: 3321

COMMENT Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (Ms. Paula Booth)

Summary:

Option BIO2 is the preferred option. We consider that it is essential to protect and enhance biodiversity. We are concerned that using the term 'where appropriate' in relation to the provision of biodiversity enhancement is not specific enough.

More details about Rep ID: 3321

Representation ID: 3316

SUPPORT The National Trust (Nina Crabb)

Summary:

The National Trust prefers option BIO 2. New developments should be required to provide enhancements to biodiversity. A Green Infrastructure Plan should also be prepared to ensure that a network of green infrastructure can be planned and managed strategically.

More details about Rep ID: 3316

Representation ID: 3294

COMMENT Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs)

Summary:

This is the better of the two options but is still rather weak and needs a much stronger commitment to collective inter authority approach to enhancement. Mid Suffolk really does need to produce a green infrastructure strategy as a matter of urgency. The supporting text recognises that habitats are healthier when connected to each other but then fails to propose policies to achieve this. The provision of new green infrastructure tailored to meeting wildlife priorities can help achieve this.

More details about Rep ID: 3294

Representation ID: 3273

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

Bio 2 which prioritises maintenance and development of sites

More details about Rep ID: 3273

Representation ID: 3039

COMMENT Mr Peter Sutters

Summary:

There appears to be zero consideration for the retention of prime agricultural land. With a potential need post Brexit for the UK to be growing more food an assessment of the quality of the agricultural land in Babergh & Mid Suffolk must be undertaken before any further concrete is laid.,

More details about Rep ID: 3039

Representation ID: 3006

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

We are in favour of BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 3006

Representation ID: 2946

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

Summary:

The DDNPSG has already identified the need for greater and integrated protection for the River Waveney and its extended riverine habitats, together with nearby areas of ecological importance and therefore expresses a strong preference for BIO2.

More details about Rep ID: 2946

Representation ID: 2655

SUPPORT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council supports policy option BIO1.

More details about Rep ID: 2655

Representation ID: 2563

SUPPORT Mr Terry Corner

Summary:

Support BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 2563

Representation ID: 2502

SUPPORT Mr Brian HUNT

Summary:

Local green spacers need to be protected.

More details about Rep ID: 2502

Representation ID: 2431

COMMENT Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith)

Summary:

BIO2 is preferred - this incorporates BIO1 and takes it one step further by "enhancement".

More details about Rep ID: 2431

Representation ID: 2296

SUPPORT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

We support option BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 2296

Representation ID: 2193

COMMENT Mr. A. Breen

Summary:

Biodiversity across all districts in all areas and in all developments but not to the detriment of the important agricultural sector of the economy where a gradual process of change to accommodate biodiversity is necessary.

More details about Rep ID: 2193

Representation ID: 2166

SUPPORT K&P Coghlin

Summary:

I support BIO 2. This must be a priority for the councils.

More details about Rep ID: 2166

Representation ID: 2072

COMMENT Mrs Kathie Guthrie

Summary:

B102.

We must do more in planning terms in particular mitigate for any loss of habitat, plant more trees and leave much more space between main highways and developments.

Light pollution is another thing we are now disturbing our wild life with.

More details about Rep ID: 2072

Representation ID: 1991

COMMENT Denise Mawhood

Summary:

Brian Eversham (East Anglian Wildlife Trust) advocated wildlife corridors, ideally 300 m wide along motorways. These could include cycle and footways. A network of smaller wildlife corridors, around the edges of farms and villages also needs to be created. As climate change encroaches on the UK, species survival will depend on the ability to migrate northwards. For this during current global warming, they will need to be able to access wildlife corridors. Without means to migrate northwards they will simply die out. In the UK on average our wildlife is advancing northwards at a rate of almost 5m per day. (RSPB statistics)

We urgently need to provide wildlife highways if we are to preserve biodiversity in the UK for future generations. This would be catered for by Option BIO2. Also seek enhancements for the network of habitats and biodiversity where appropriate.

More details about Rep ID: 1991

Representation ID: 1946

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

The Parish Council has a strong preference for BIO2 as it offers enhanced protection and includes networks of habitats between specific sites. Palgrave is conscious that its northern boundary follows the line of the River Waveney, which has a number of designated sites but lacks overall protection.

More details about Rep ID: 1946

Representation ID: 1848

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

Strong Preference would be for BIO2 to try and enhance the
sites further. Absolute minimum to retain existing site as is. It is not just about protecting designated landscapes. There is a
danger that our rural core villages that sit comfortably in the
landscape face increasing pressures from developments that
generate a suburban, estate environment rather than a rural,
village environment. A stronger policy is needed to ensure
that developments are screened by landscaping and tree belts, with roof scapes broken up by planting, and ridge lines
by tree belts.

More details about Rep ID: 1848

Representation ID: 1773

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

Strong Preference would be for BIO2 to try and enhance the
sites further. Absolute minimum to retain existing site as is. It is not just about protecting designated landscapes. There is a
danger that our rural core villages that sit comfortably in the
landscape face increasing pressures from developments that
generate a suburban, estate environment rather than a rural,
village environment. A stronger policy is needed to ensure
that developments are screened by landscaping and tree belts, with roof scapes broken up by planting, and ridge lines
by tree belts.

More details about Rep ID: 1773

Representation ID: 1676

COMMENT Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote)

Summary:

Hoxne Parish Council wishes to support option BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 1676

Representation ID: 1587

SUPPORT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

BIO2

More details about Rep ID: 1587

Representation ID: 1298

SUPPORT Mrs Diana Chapman

Summary:

I support Option BIO2. The protection and enhancement of designations, habitats and species is of particular importance, especially the enhancement of networks of habitats and biodiversity, focusing on wildlife corridors and stepping stones.

More details about Rep ID: 1298

Representation ID: 1271

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

Prefer option B102 as it is more comprehensive.

More details about Rep ID: 1271

Representation ID: 820

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

Summary:

There is no discussion on general open countryside and the protection of distinct local landscapes outside the narrow designations. Would recommend that BIO2 is supported subject to the above.

More details about Rep ID: 820

Representation ID: 778

SUPPORT Mr Kevin Armstrong

Summary:

I support BIO 2. This should be a priority in Babergh.

More details about Rep ID: 778

Representation ID: 563

COMMENT mr David Fisk

Summary:

Pin Mill is an open sewer with over 30 vessels dumping raw sewage onto and into the soft mud at all states of the tide. It is used by hundreds of people taking part in leisure activities including swimming, paddling, playing and all forms of water borne activities. The sewage has accumulated over a the past 60 years and is a real danger to public health and to the health of those that have to work on the Public Hard each working day.

More details about Rep ID: 563

Representation ID: 307

COMMENT Mr Simon Barrett

Summary:

This type of policy has been used as a method to block development, it needs a pragmatic approach.

More details about Rep ID: 307

Representation ID: 223

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

BIO 2 would ensure a more sustainable approach

More details about Rep ID: 223

Representation ID: 11

SUPPORT Mr Paul Macbay

Summary:

hopefully option 2 will become standard in the future and villages could use land for use for creating species rich meadows/woodland along with recreation not just for built development.

More details about Rep ID: 11

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

Powered by OpusConsult