PM 2.

The adopted settlement boundaries and neighbourhood plan for Drinkstone must be added

Neither the adopted settlement boundaries nor the neighbourhood plan settlement boundaries for Drinkstone Street and Drinkstone Green are shown on the interactive policies map

see submitted Representations document and suggested settlement boundary revision

see submitted Representations document and suggested settlement boundary revision

Include settlement boundary map for Milden for clarity.

I have objected because I am unable to find a settlement boundary map for the Hamlet village of Milden in this latest document. This is of concern because there have been 2 maps (Built Up Area Boundary). Firstly that published in the Joint Local Plan Preferred Options Document in July 2019 which was subsequently redrawn/reduced in November 2020. Our District Councillor was advised by Robert Hobbs Corporate Manager - Strategic Planning that this was because 'it is considered inappropriate to create potential large development plots'. That later map of November 2020 is not shown.

We would therefore like to have the Online
Policy Map amended to reflect the change shown in the Place Map on P.243 of the July 2019 document

We are dismayed at the deletion of LP30 ‘Designated Open Spaces’, as a policy in its
own right and its incorporation into LP28. One of the big takeaways from the
pandemic was the importance of open space (in all its aspects) to the wellbeing and
quality of life of all ages and abilities. In our own parish council we committed our
largest project outlay, at this time, on enhancing part of the public footpath system,
specifically to address the importance of access to open space.
In your new text (p44 Modifications Document), you describe what ‘open space’
includes. We strongly suggest that it should include a specific reference to AVRAs.
AVRAs seem to have been removed by stealth; there is no reference to them in the
November 2020 Pre-Submission Document. We suggest an extra bullet point under
the new text beginning ‘Open Spaces includes’ (Modifications Schedule P.44). this
bullet point could be stated simply as ‘All AVRAs’.
The ’disappearance’ of AVRAs was the focus of one of our representations to the
Inspector. A representative of the Parish Council spoke at one of the Inspector’s
online meetings (September/October 2021?). At this meeting (You Tube > BMSDCJLP
> Matter 1 (question 1.3) consultation) the Inspector said, that in the light of what he
had heard, he was asking BMSDC to look again at Open Space. It was our
representative’s view that an assessment of the place of AVRAs would be part of that
process. The Inspector invited our representative to attend a later session on Open
Space; unfortunately, soon after this the Inspection was paused.
2. Our second representation to the Inspector concerned the redrawing of the village
boundary (without consultation or notification) in the Pre-Submission (Reg 19)
Document November 2020, which moved the two AVRAs on The Street, Shimpling,
from inside the village boundary to outside of it. We note that in the Draft Online
Policy Map, the two AVRAs have been reinstated as falling inside the BUAB and we
welcome this.
We note that your Online Policy Map seems to have reverted entirely to the BUAB
shown on a previous map produced by Babergh dated 2007. However, there was a
small amendment to the BUAB (shown in JLP Preferred Options (Reg 18) Consultation
Document July 2019). In this document the Place Map for Shimpling is shown on
P.243. The BUAB opposite Gents Lane has been extended so that it juts out to
enclose two buildings recently built. We would therefore like to have the Online
Policy Map amended to reflect the change shown in the Place Map on P.243 of the
July 2019 document

1.1. Savills has highlighted within previously submitted Local Plan representations various
issues with the supporting evidence base for the Joint Local Plan as submitted. It is noted
that Main Modifications Consultation identifies a number of changes to the Submission
Policies Map (Core Document A01). In respect of Great Waldingfield, the extent of the
settlement boundary is now proposed to reflect the extant Policies Map for the settlement
under modification reference PM2.
1.2. A small area of land, within the promoted site ‘Land to the south of Waldingfield Road,
Great Waldingfield’, was included within the Submitted Joint Local Plan proposed
settlement boundary for Great Waldingfield (Core Document A01) (SHELAA reference
SS1068). Given there is a residual need to identify additional land to meet Babergh’s
identified housing need across the plan period, we reiterate that this site remains a
suitable, available, and deliverable and should be considered for residential development
within the plan period as part of the Local Plan Part 2.
1.3. The Main Modifications consultation proposes deferring all consideration of the
settlement boundaries and proposed allocations to the Local Plan Part 2. As set out at
paragraph 2.9 and 2.10 of these representations, we have suggested a new policy which
would commit the Councils to the timely review of settlement boundaries and
identification of additional land to meet the residual housing need within Local Plan Part 2.
1.4. Whilst Endurance Estates has previously supported in principle the slight amendment to
the settlement boundary as identified on the Submitted policies map (Core Document
A01) and the release of land at ‘Land south of Waldingfield Road’ (SHELAA reference
SS1068), we are also of the opinion that a larger extent of land, which has not yet been
fully assessed within the existing SHLAA, is capable of identification for allocation. The
site is not subject to any national or local policy constraints. The site is suitable, available
and delivery of homes is achievable in the short term, certainly within the plan period. We
respectfully reserve the opportunity to provide further comment about the site in response
to any Part 2 Local Plan consultation.