Q3

To protect the UK's food production capability by limiting housing development to lower-grade land only.

To limit the rate of housing development in any community to that which can be supported by its infrastructure or includes infrastructure development; that enhances that community and does not materially change its character.

Greater focus should be put on Leisure and Tourism. We live in one of the most scenic and well connected parts of the country. We benefit from the landscape that inspired two of the greatest painters this country has produced.

Sudbury has one real hotel, Hadleigh doesn't have one. Lavenham and Long Melford thrive because they embrace the leisure ans tourism sectors.

The offer of evening activities across the district are dire. Sudbury has a theatre, a bowling alley, and a snooker hall. Other than that the choice is going to a licensed premises.

So far in 2017 an average of approximately 14,500,000 cinema tickets were sold each month (UK Cinema Association, 2017). None of these were sold in Babergh.

If there was a cinema in the region that would mean business rates, employment, growth of symbiotic offerings like restaurants which would mean business rates and employment.

There should be a stronger focus on better rail and road links to local businesses to allow easier commutes otherwise no one of working age will move to the area. I support the push for more business and business parks to boost employment.

OBJECTIVES - Failure to have an Objective that specifically identifies the need to safeguard the Districts historic heritage (both designated and non designated assets) from unsympathetic change and or destruction.

RPC considers the development of all categories of communication to very important to the more rural communities in Suffolk.

I am a local resident of the village of Drinkstone in Mid Suffolk District Councils area. Whilst I understand that Drinkstone Parish Council are likely to respond to your consultation document direct, I would like personally to make the following comments / observations, regarding the above;

Whilst my wife and I have only been a residents in Drinkstone for 6 months, my wife and I were residents in Woolpit for over 23 Years and we personally do not want to see Drinkstone being ruined by ad-hoc housing developments, similar to those agreed for Woolpit.

Public transport, local amenities and the road infrastructure within Drinkstone are not suitably geared up for an increase in housing stock without significant investment in such matters. More importantly by the council focusing on housing stock numbers, etc. there is a severe risk of ruining the picturesque nature of our village, similar to what has happened and continues to happen in Woolpit.

My specific comments on your consultation document are;

Q1 What do you think the vision should be? and Q2 Do you agree with the identified objectives?
* The current statement does not give adequate clarity for me to properly assess what the impact will be on Drinkstone. Apart from the objective of building more houses, there is little in the vision statement that demonstrates any innovative thinking on key issues in proposed policy addressing the economy, environment and infrastructure. As a result there is a serious risk that the pressures of the need for more housing stock, will result in the council ignoring totally environmental, infrastructure and conservation matters to the detriment of the whole village.

Q3 Are there other objectives which should be added?
* Infrastructure upgrades should precede the granting of large scale planning permissions.
* For smaller housing developments there should be a more rigorous assessment of the cumulative impact on the existing infrastructure before permission is granted, and improvements should be made before any development begins where they are deemed necessary.

Q5 What is most important for your town or village?
The basic infrastructure should be improved before any further development is considered in the Drinkstone area. The key areas of concern regarding infrastructure are;
* Poor secondary road infrastructure
* The village does not have access to gas and therefore to continue to allow development a housing stock with oil (environmentally damaging) will not fulfil the requirements of the councils environmental strategy
* No local amenities

Q11 Do you agree with the proposed criteria approach to rank settlements? & Q12 Do you agree with proposed settlement hierarchy?
* There appears to be factual errors in the scoring. Our village (Drinkstone) is 8 miles from a town, not 3 and the main settlement is 2.5 miles from a core village, not 1.5.
* The hinterland village category is too large and should be broken down further to distinguish those villages scoring low on the hinterland scale.

Q15 If a new settlement was to be planned in the area, where should it be located?
* It is likely that a significant proportion of any new residents will want to commute to work, most likely out of the local area, so any new settlements should be located close to a major roads with ideally good and close access to the rail network.

Q 64 What do you consider the key infrastructure issues in your community?
* Inadequate public transport and road infrastructure, means that the infrastructure around and in Drinkstone will not be able to cope with any increase in road traffic. The village also currently does not have any local amenities and therefore this must be fully recognised by the council and taken into due consideration, prior to allowing any increase in housing stock in the village.

To conclude we need to be mindful of what has detrimentally happened and continues to happen to Woolpit and this should not be allowed to happen to Drinkstone. Drinkstone and its villagers have a strong sense of camaraderie and without the appropriate controls in place, which I do not see in the current consultation document, there is a high risk of Drinkstone becoming just another suburb of Bury St Edmunds and I for one, do not want to see this happen.

See attachment

I agree with the objectives. However, it will not be long before a relief road around Elmswell crossing the railway on a bridge becomes an absolute necessity. Contribution to this should be part of any planning conditions for future developments.

Not at the moment
Light on employment and infrastructure

add local employment and retail, particularly in rural areas to offset dormitory nature of many villages.

Specific attention should be given to support identified growth in the area of Science Parks and non-identified areas of support and potential growth in agri-related businesses. in particular, what universities and colleges will support the growth of Science Parks and in what sectors? What is the specialism from which the District can derive the need for research and innovation from?

Key sectors include creative industries, construction, tourism and hospitality, yet, again, there is no specific support or vision within the plan to support these key sectors.

Housing development should not be at the expense of the village structure. For example housing development on the Ipswich fringe could severely effect Sproughton with the potential that it could simply become part of Ipswich.

I support the objectives listed in the document. However, I would wish to add an additional category that relates to sustainable patterns of development, connectivity, accessibility and movement around the area. In particular the Plan should seek to locate and design new development to promote sustainable travel for all, minimise the need to rely on the private car, promote walking, cycling and public transport. Accessibility for all, including those with limited mobility and accompanying children and the elderly should also be refelected in the objectives.

No

All roads in Palgrave are high speed "rat runs" between A1066 and A143.
Portable speed monitors should be introduced as vehicle speeds are a major concern to our villagers.
Maintaining white lining especially on bends to avoid "cutting corners"
We have a shortage of pavements especially in the village and Denmark hill.
Low cost street lighting should be enhanced to ensure safety of the villagers.

Infrastructure improvements need to be in place before housing developments are approved. Development should not be permitted in flood risk areas.

For smaller housing developments including windfall sites and infill, the cumulative impact of the developments must be considered and each individual application not considered in isolation.

To ensure that all parts of the District receive equal weight, consideration and investment and do not become satellite villages reliant solely on large towns which may be in another county.
A greater need to engage more, listen more and respond more positively to the views of the communities as per the spirit and intent of the Localism Act 2011.

I would like to see a greater emphasis on sustainable transport with better options for public transport including rail links and bus routes

A explicit commitment to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions as should be an overarching objective within the vision. Reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable energy has an impact on all aspects of the local plan. There should be a clear and explicit plan for infrastructure improvement over the whole district, and that infrastructure upgrades should precede the granting of large scale planning permissions. For smaller developments there should be a more rigorous assessment of the cumulative impact on existing infrastructure before permission is granted, and improvements should be made before development begins where they are deemed necessary.

No

Better transport links especially roads and public transport.

See attachment

Cockfield Parish Council has not identified any additions necessary.

Consideration for the heritage of rural villages and hamlets that are integral to the landscape of the Suffolk countryside. The beauty and unique character of many of our towns and villages are enhanced because of these listed buildings, full consideration to the preservation of this must be given Once it's gone, its gone.

I applaud the inclusion of 'healthy community' objectives but more consideration needs to be given to medical services, specifically hospital provision and more local surgeries. While the population is increasing in Sudbury, and expected to continue to do so, we have lost 2 hospitals and gained only one out-patient clinic with no emergency provision. Local surgeries are generally overloaded and doctor's appointments very difficult to obtain.
Under this heading, too, there is less provision in the town for children's sport and athletics as middle schools have closed, one of which had extensive playing fields and tennis courts.

In addition to the Ipswich Northern by pass there are two villages that need by passes if the growth in the countyside is to continue; they are Elmswell and Haughley

To work much more actively with neighbouring authorities, in order to ensure that areas close to the border and especially those settlements substantially reliant on the adjoining area for services and infrastructure in order to remain sustainable are given full and due consideration.

To ensure that the northern parts of Mid Suffolk District receive equal weight, consideration and investment and not neglected as at present in favour of those settlements close to the A14 corridor.

To act more positively in influencing the required provision of infrastructure and in particular to press for decades overdue investment in improvements to those principal traffic routes the responsibility of the local Highway Authorities, i.e. A140 and A143.

To engage more, listen more and respond more positively to the views of the communities as per the spirit and intent of the Localism Act 2011.

None

Listed objectives include 'to support the Ipswich Northern Route project'. In particular there is a need to support any road infrastructure project to bring motorway access from London - Ipswich - Felixstowe which would run south of Ipswich, and motorway from Felixstowe to A14/A140 junction area running north of Ipswich.