MM46.

p114 LP13 1c-e (old#) Why have conditions to protect/enhance heritage, biodiversity and geodiversity assets been removed as have conditions for greener development.
LP13 3 Why has option to apply conditions to protect against ecological impacts been removed.

No justification to restrict tourism accommodation in the countryside in this
way.
Paragraph 2 of policy LP13 is unnecessary.
Paragraph 3 of policy LP13 is also unnecessary. All it does is repeat the three objectives of
sustainable as described at paragraph 8 of the NPPF.

Objection to policy SP07-tourism.
The policy states:
1. New sustainable tourism development that supports the tourism role of the settlements
across Babergh and Mid Suffolk will be encouraged where appropriate to the scale,
character and nature of their locality.
2. Historic, recreational and landscape-based tourism proposals that demonstrate protection
of the historic and natural environment will be supported.
The objection to the policy as proposed is as follows.
Firstly, part one of the policy is unquantifiable. What is meant by “The tourism role of the
settlements“ Not all settlements in the district will have a tourism role. Secondly, the second
paragraph of the policy supports “landscape-based tourism”. Landscape based tourism is likely to
be in the countryside, not within a settlement. Furthermore, the policy does not accord with
paragraph 84 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It states that planning policies
should enable sustainable rural tourism leisure developments which respect the character of the
countryside. There is no requirement for tourism developments in the countryside to support a
Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan
Consultation on Proposed Additional Modifications Paper Representations Form (2023) 4
role of a particular settlement. Furthermore, paragraph 84 (c) of the NPPF whilst requiring
development to respect the character of the countryside, does not include a consideration of scale.
Policy SP07 does not explain what it means by scale. It is ambiguous.
In addition, whilst policy SP07 supports “historic, recreational and landscape-based tourism
proposals”. It does not take into account other tourism and leisure activities such as water based
recreation.
It is also the case that there are long established businesses in the countryside which provide
significant benefits to the local rural economy and which should be identified and designated as
strategic tourism sites. Stonham Barns is one such site.

Objection to Policy LP12-tourism and leisure
The first objection relates to criteria (c) of the policy which states that “new tourism and leisure
facilities or improvement/extensions to existing facilities must be accessible by public transport
and facilitates walking and cycling, whilst providing appropriate parking and access and ensuring
the associated traffic movement would not compromise highway safety. “
Existing tourist attractions which are in the countryside are not accessible by public transport.
This is because Mid Suffolk and Babergh has only a handful of railway stations and very limited bus
services. This part of the policy is contrary to the NPPF. Paragraph 84 (c) of the NPPF states that
planning policies should enable sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect
the character of the countryside. It does not require existing or new sites to be accessible by public
transport.
Furthermore, paragraph 85 states in part “planning policies and decisions should recognise that
sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to
or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport”
Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan
Consultation on Proposed Additional Modifications Paper Representations Form (2023) 4
My clients also object to criteria (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 of policy LP12. First of all, criteria (e)
doesn't make sense. Secondly, criteria (f) is unreasonable and goes far beyond what is required by
the NPPF.
Criteria (f) is unreasonable for many reasons. Firstly, all forms of development results in impact
therefore it will be impossible to avoid impacts. Secondly, the requirement to make impacts
insignificant on the local ecology biodiversity trees and hedgerowsshould be quantified. Otherwise
it is vague and ambiguous. And, the term “as a last resort” is also vague and ambiguous.
The objection also relates to the second paragraph of policy LP12. Criteria (b) of the second
paragraph requires proposalsfor tourism and leisure outside of settlement boundaries to “improve
accessibility for existing places which are not well served by public transport”. There is no such
requirement for development in rural areas to do so within any of the policies of the NPPF. It
implies that developments in the countryside are expected to provide their own bus service to and
from other settlements. This would be completely unreasonable.

Objection to policy LP13
The first paragraph of the policy states:
1. Outside settlement boundaries, applications for new tourist accommodation will be
considered on the exceptional basis. In addition, applications must accord with other
policies and the plan and:
(a) Demonstrate an overriding business need to be in that location;
(b) Be sympathetic to the character of the area; and,
(c) Be accessible by a range of transport modes.
First of all, there is no justification to restrict tourism accommodation in the countryside in this
way. The policy as worded is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 85 of
the NPPF confirms that planning policies should recognise that sites to meet local business and
community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements,
and in locations that are not well served by public transport.
The attraction of many rural tourist sites is the very fact that they are in the countryside and away
from the noise, hustle and bustle of urban centres. Their tranquil, quiet and countryside location
Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan
Consultation on Proposed Additional Modifications Paper Representations Form (2023) 4
is their main attraction, a business which is proposing a countryside retreat by definition needs to
be located in the countryside.
The NPPF does not require tourist accommodation proposals in the countryside to demonstrate
an overriding business need to be in that location. Nor does the NPPF require rural tourism
developments to be accessible by a range of transport modes.
On this point it is important to refer to paragraph 105 of the NPPF which states in part “significant
development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable”. As proposed,
policy LP13 does not distinguish between significant or small scale developments.
Furthermore, paragraph 105 of the NPPF goes on to state “However, opportunities to maximise
sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and this should be taken
into account in both plan making and decision making”. Policy LP13 does not take this into account.
Paragraph 2 of policy LP13 is unnecessary.
Paragraph 3 of policy LP13 is also unnecessary. All it does is repeat the three objectives of
sustainable as described at paragraph 8 of the NPPF

The first paragraph of the policy states:
1. Outside settlement boundaries, applications for new tourist accommodation will be considered on the exceptional basis. In addition, applications must accord with other policies and the plan and:
(a) Demonstrate an overriding business need to be in that location;
(b) Be sympathetic to the character of the area; and,
(c) Be accessible by a range of transport modes.

First of all, there is no justification to restrict tourism accommodation in the countryside in this way. The policy as worded is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 85 of the NPPF confirms that planning policies should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport.

The attraction of many rural tourist sites is the very fact that they are in the countryside and away from the noise, hustle and bustle of urban centres. Their tranquil, quiet and countryside location is their main attraction, a business which is proposing a countryside retreat by definition needs to be located in the countryside.

The NPPF does not require tourist accommodation proposals in the countryside to demonstrate an overriding business need to be in that location. Nor does the NPPF require rural tourism developments to be accessible by a range of transport modes.

On this point it is important to refer to paragraph 105 of the NPPF which states in part “significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable”. As proposed, policy LP13 does not distinguish between significant or small scale developments.

Furthermore, paragraph 105 of the NPPF goes on to state “However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and this should be taken into account in both plan making and decision making”. Policy LP13 does not take this into account.

Paragraph 2 of policy LP13 is unnecessary.

Paragraph 3 of policy LP13 is also unnecessary. All it does is repeat the three objectives of sustainable as described at paragraph 8 of the NPPF.

The wording of this policy should be amended to be in line with the NPPF. The word 'exceptional' should be removed, and point a, requiring an 'overriding business need' should be removed. The pre-amble should also reference the relevant sections of the NPPF, as set out above.

This policy requires an exceptional business case to be made for any tourist accommodation in the countryside. We find this unnecessarily restrictive, and in direct conflict with the NPPF, particularly 84(a) and (c) and 85. There is no reason to set such a high threshold for rural tourism development, and in fact, this will only encourage residents to rent out accommodation without planning permission. The countryside is highly valued by tourists, who contribute hugely to the local economy - the NPPF recognises this, and so should the Local Plan.