01- Introduction

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 33

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16206

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: Ms Jackie Knight

Representation:

All development which is not on brown sites should cease. Development leads to increased population. Population is the biggest worldwide crisis facing our planet. Taught in schools since at least 1970's but governments just want more people for more taxes, so no action on tax and other incentives to have fewer children. Not building, except on brown sites, keeps countryside for all creatures well-being If a local plan is a tiny step towards fewer developments and preservation of life, I'm all for it and more needs to be done.

Full text:

All development which is not on brown sites should cease. Development leads to increased population. Population is the biggest worldwide crisis facing our planet. Taught in schools since at least 1970's but governments just want more people for more taxes, so no action on tax and other incentives to have fewer children. Not building, except on brown sites, keeps countryside for all creatures well-being If a local plan is a tiny step towards fewer developments and preservation of life, I'm all for it and more needs to be done.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16253

Received: 12/08/2019

Respondent: Professor Robert Turner & Mrs J.M. Turner

Representation:

01.11, the Plan says that it seeks to protect the District’s valuable natural resources. In the context of Woolpit that means the countryside that surrounds the village on four sides which is all prime agricultural land and the views of and from the village from its elevated position and the historic centre therein. The Mid Suffolk District Council have been in possession of the Woolpit Neighbourhood - Land Appraisal Report prepared by Alison Farmer Associates of Cambridge since March 2018 but make no mention of any of the recommendations in the Report in their plans for the village of Woolpit

Full text:

Please see attached local plan reponse

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16254

Received: 12/08/2019

Respondent: Professor Robert Turner & Mrs J.M. Turner

Representation:

01.14 seeks to coordinate the delivery of the necessary infrastructure. There are no proposals for ensuring that a developer pays for and builds this infrastructure ahead of any housing development. The developer will only be interested in building houses for sale and if he has to pay a premium to the council to pay for such infrastructure, he will simply add this to the cost of the individual houses. He is not interested in building the necessary schools, car parks, shops or paying for the bus services.

Full text:

Please see attached local plan reponse

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16297

Received: 19/08/2019

Respondent: Mr John Rhodes

Representation:

Point 1.09
This does not appear to mention “Village Plans” drawn up by the Local Parish Councils and should be recognised and incorporated into the overall strategy. In particular, Bramford’s own Parish Plan, which was updated in 2012, should be recognised and taken into account to truly reflect the requirements of the Parishioner's of Bramford.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16325

Received: 27/08/2019

Respondent: Mr Terence Gray

Representation:

This document compared to the last consultation represents a momentous leap forward. it appears to have been compiled and written by persons who understand the problems and solutions facing the wider population. It represents development without destroying our beautiful countryside and has a common sense approach.

Full text:

This document compared to the last consultation represents a momentous leap forward. it appears to have been compiled and written by persons who understand the problems and solutions facing the wider population. It represents development without destroying our beautiful countryside and has a common sense approach.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16404

Received: 30/08/2019

Respondent: Mrs Linda Giles

Representation:

Joint Local Plan event was held at a time when many would be on holiday or at work. It was very poorly publicised. I only became aware through word of mouth. There are at least 3 notice boards in the village and this was publicised on one only, at the edge of Rickinghall. I feel many more people would want to comment if they had awareness.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16444

Received: 06/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris

Representation:

When considering development for growth, the plan must take into consideration its impact on existing communities.

Full text:

When considering development for growth, the plan must take into consideration its impact on existing communities.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16445

Received: 06/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris

Representation:

The text says "Development should be planned to secure the delivery of key infrastructure projects across the County, such as the improvements to the A14 network as well as localised infrastructure schemes within communities. "
Use of the word "should" is used by planning officers to reason a policy is a goal; something that may have been expected but is not required.

Full text:

The text says "Development should be planned to secure the delivery of key infrastructure projects across the County, such as the improvements to the A14 network as well as localised infrastructure schemes within communities. "
Use of the word "should" is used by planning officers to reason a policy is a goal; something that may have been expected but is not required.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16455

Received: 06/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris

Representation:

The text says "01.11 The Draft JLP will set out planning policies to set the context for protecting the Districts' valuable natural and built environment ... . It is not stated what is valuable, what is not, or how to value an environment. I would not like Sproughton Village to have its built environment unprotected because of an opinion or judgement that it is not valuable.

Full text:

The text says "01.11 The Draft JLP will set out planning policies to set the context for protecting the Districts' valuable natural and built environment ... . It is not stated what is valuable, what is not, or how to value an environment. I would not like Sproughton Village to have its built environment unprotected because of an opinion or judgement that it is not valuable.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16456

Received: 06/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris

Representation:

The text says "01.16 ... The policies will make sufficient provision for: ... Infrastructure; and ... Conservation and enhancement of the ... built ... environment. I support this because Sproughton Village currently has insufficient provision of transport infrastructure, and a volume of traffic which detracts from the beauty of the built environment.

Full text:

The text says "01.16 ... The policies will make sufficient provision for: ... Infrastructure; and ... Conservation and enhancement of the ... built ... environment. I support this because Sproughton Village currently has insufficient provision of transport infrastructure, and a volume of traffic which detracts from the beauty of the built environment.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16468

Received: 07/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Sutters

Representation:

As I am one of the 12% of males who are Colour Blind (Source NHS) in Green & Red - I find your plans extremely difficult to understand both on line and with the printed versions available at Consultation Meetings.

Councils should take care of people with disabilities. OK being Colour Blind is not a major disability but I strongly feel that in future your plans could have distinctive colours and more use of shading etc. Use of lines and distinctly different colours would make my understanding of plans a lot easier.

Full text:

As I am one of the 12% of males who are Colour Blind (Source NHS) in Green & Red - I find your plans extremely difficult to understand both on line and with the printed versions available at Consultation Meetings.

Councils should take care of people with disabilities. OK being Colour Blind is not a major disability but I strongly feel that in future your plans could have distinctive colours and more use of shading etc. Use of lines and distinctly different colours would make my understanding of plans a lot easier.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16685

Received: 17/09/2019

Respondent: Bedfield Parish Council

Representation:

Bedfield Parish Council object to its parish allocation within the Debenham Cluster, the parish is predominantly served by Framlingham. The possibility of planned infrastructure and services (and one must assume reciprocal public funding) would be proportionately erroneous and a waste of such proportionate funding for Debenham.

Full text:

Please see attached document and two maps for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16709

Received: 18/09/2019

Respondent: Mr James Webster

Representation:

Ref: Document:

"Babergh & Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (July 2019)"

When viewing the document online, the index on page 3, shows various chapter headings through to page No. 460, "Policies Map Key"  which is the final page of the document after the plan of Yaxley,

Page 460 does not exist

Without this Key it is impossible to understand the meaning of the graphics & colours on the hundreds of plans and maps in the documents.

Lack of this important information renders the document unsound.

Full text:

Ref: Document:

"Babergh & Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (July 2019)"

When viewing the document online, the index on page 3, shows various chapter headings through to page No. 460, "Policies Map Key"  which is the final page of the document after the plan of Yaxley,

Page 460 does not exist

Without this Key it is impossible to understand the meaning of the graphics & colours on the hundreds of plans and maps in the documents.

Lack of this important information renders the document unsound.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16960

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Graham R Gibbs

Representation:

As we are commenting from Weybread Parish Council we request that you read our measured response above which covers the whole document.

Full text:

The following are comments made by Weybread Parish Council regarding the Consultation Document on the Preferred Options of Babergh & Mid-Suffolk’s Joint Local Plan dated July 2019 and we request that these comments are given due consideration when finalising the finished document.

Both Mid-Suffolk and Babergh consist of mainly rural areas with varying sized villages surrounded by open countryside. We believe that this Policy Document doesn’t take this into account and in fact causes the north of the district considerable harm.

Although the draft document states:-

“Healthy Communities and Infrastructure – To enable all communities to thrive, grow, be healthy, active and self-sufficient through supporting the provision of the necessary infrastructure” - Page 10, 03 Vision and Objectives
and
“Policy Background and Explanation – Each category of settlements will be required to contribute towards the future growth of the districts” - Page 30, 08 Settlement Hierarchy

We don’t believe that this document represents these views.

Studying the Mid-Suffolk District Council Place Maps – pages 277 to 459, there are only three parishes within the northern area displaying any dwelling allocation – Botesdale & Rickinghall, Eye and Stradbroke. We believe that this proves that no weight has been given to the two statements quoted above. Every community deserves to have a chance of some measured growth to enable them to thrive. 5 small Parishes offering 20 dwellings each is 100 dwellings towards the total required. This situation has been made worse by previous policies which also refused to recognise the importance of each community within Mid-Suffolk.

Weybread Parish Council strongly requests that the two quoted comments from page 10 and page 30 are acted upon and for those communities, who wish it, be allowed to play their part in helping with the District’s land supply.

Weybread Parish Council feel very strongly that the criteria used to categorise each Parish is fundamentally flawed. Not every community can have a sustainable school, shop, sports centre, Library and Doctor’s Surgery, but those that do, rely heavily on their neighbouring parishes to keep them sustainable. If no measured growth is allowed within the surrounding smaller Parishes, it will have a detrimental effect upon the slightly larger Parishes and their facilities.

The Parish of Weybread lies on the northern border of Mid-Suffolk and is situated 2.5 miles from the Norfolk market town of Harleston with a thriving array of shops and ready access to public transport routes. However, this isn’t taken into account when assessing Weybread’s classification. In addition, Weybread Parish Council believes that the numbers employed within a Parish should be taken into account when assessing housing need. A few years ago, Weybread Parish Council carried out a survey for their District Councillor on actual numbers employed within the Parish. Although Weybread consists of 189 dwellings with an approximate population of 420, there were 320 people employed within the Parish Boundary. We accept that this will decrease when Cranswick redeploy to the Eye industrial estate, (120 employed at the time of the survey), 200 is still a significant number and should be taken into account.

Although we understand the financial implications for school transport, this cannot be allowed to influence the smaller housing developments. Small rural schools have always relied on a viable catchment area and planning housing growth around each existing school to the detriment of the smaller surrounding Parishes is unsustainable for both communities. The larger ones containing a school will grow too quickly and the smaller surrounding communities will, without an appropriate age mix, become a series of retirement villages. If these smaller rural schools aren’t supported with the appropriate growth and they are forced to close, this will have a significant affect upon the School transport budget as children will need to travel further.

Returning to the Consultation Document, the map on page 43 clearly shows the Council’s priorities within Mid-Suffolk. There is a small area within the Ipswich catchment and the area called the A14 Corridor. Mention is made of the Eye industrial site and the Parishes of Mendlesham and Woolpit but no significant importance is placed on the communities, like Weybread, which lie to the north of the district.

In conclusion, Weybread Parish Council believe that this consultation document, as it stands, will have a devastating impact upon Parishes like Weybread. Instead of including the smaller Parishes and assisting them to thrive, grow, be healthy, active and self-sufficient, this policy will have the opposite effect and discriminate against the smaller communities. This discrimination will undermine all the hardworking parishioners who strive day in and day out to build and support their community, for however strong the community spirit, every community needs to be given the opportunity to introduce new blood. We, as a Parish Council, accept that not every Parish within the District will want to participate, but every single Parish should be given the same opportunities, scaled to the individual size of each Parish.

Signed collectively by Weybread Parish Council

G Gibbs
Mr Graham Gibbs
Chairman Weybread Parish Council

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17044

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Marine Management Organisation

Representation:

We would recommend you make reference to the South East Inshore Marine Plan here or in the DtC chapter. MMO recommends wording similar to Ipswich local plan or along the lines of :
“The Stour and Orwell estuaries will be covered by policies within the South East Inshore Marine Plan which is being prepared by the Marine Management Organisation (draft plan expected early 2020). The south east marine plan area includes tidal waters and extends to the mean high water springs mark. Until the marine plan is adopted, all authorisation or enforcement decisions are to be made in accordance with the UK Marine Policy Statement for any planning activity in, below or above the waters of the Stour or Orwell and early consultation with the Marine Management Organisation is recommended.”

Full text:

Please see attached document for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17056

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Martin Lewis-Jones

Representation:

Can you please add me to Local Plan Mailing List
Thank you

Full text:

Can you please add me to Local Plan Mailing List
Thank you

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17239

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Lavenham Parish Council

Representation:

Comments on attached document

Full text:

Comments on attached document

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17436

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Carroll Reeve

Representation:

JLP needs a clean edit. Some references such as to Neighbourhood Plans are just plain wrong. NPs are required to go through a most stringent process.
NPPF methodology for Housing Need and the Councils targets, may be at variance and the creation of any 'cap' needs to be managed.
Housing delivery is actually in the hands of market forces.
Is there any correlation between the availability of suitable housing and the closure of major employers in Babergh.

Full text:

The JLP has been drafted by a number of people and needs a clean edit to ensure that not only style is consistent but also content and context. For example, some references to Neighbourhood Plans are just plain wrong and neither recognise the scrupulous process that must be followed nor the benefits that they bring to the Councils’ planning regime.
The NPPF has a standard methodology for calculating Housing Need, this may be at variance with the Target number that the Councils’ produce. A ‘cap’ may then be instigated and will need to be monitored.
Housing delivery sits with the two Councils. Market forces will, however, actually dictate delivery. The 20% buffer and windfall sites may therefore dictate preferred development sites and not a simple allocation as the JLP suggests.
Babergh has witnessed the closure of two substantial employers in Sudbury and Glemsford. The JLP seeks to keep these as employment sites. Is there any correlation between the availability of suitable housing to support the workforce for these employment sites?

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17464

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Eye Town Council

Representation:

The wording in section 01.22 should be strengthened. NPs which are close to or at a referendum stage should shape relevant sections of the JLP. ETC proposes that the drafting be amended to ‘ where a NP has reached a referendum stage or is endorsed by the community through a ballot then sites selected for development will be incorporated into the final JLP provided targets allocated for housing and the principles of the NPPF are met’

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17564

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Offton & Willisham Parish Council

Representation:

This public document is full of jargon and over 100 pages long.
As a Parish Clerk I can say I have spent time on this and have looked at and understood this, but for the general public and for Councillors it should not be set out like this. Exceedingly unhelpful and full of jargon not for the layman.
Following a meeting held on 2nd September 2019 I can confirm the following:- Cllrs felt comments are not taken seriously, since lack of response shown following the last JLP. It was written by planners for planners. No Wallow Lane on consultation.

Full text:

This public document is full of jargon and over 100 pages long.
As a Parish Clerk I can say I have spent time on this and have looked at and understood this, but for the general public and for Councillors it should not be set out like this. Exceedingly unhelpful and full of jargon not for the layman.
Following a meeting held on 2nd September 2019 I can confirm the following:- Cllrs felt comments are not taken seriously, since lack of response shown following the last JLP. It was written by planners for planners. No Wallow Lane on consultation.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17649

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Sudbury Area Green Belt Group

Representation:

We criticise failure to specify the parts of the Core Strategies that will be carried forward in the Local Plan; for instance we would wish to be consulted on whether the Chilton Woods proposal is to remain central to strategy, or support for a Sudbury western by-pass, or whether other options should proceed.

Full text:

We object that, despite the intention of this Plan to replace the existing Core Policies, this Consultation doesn’t include any prompt to comment on those Core Policies/ Strategies, we hope to see this in the next version of the Draft Plan.

We support in principle the concentration on Chilton Woods for the Sudbury area, as its location makes it less damaging to the environment than would multiple alternative developments which would amount to urban sprawl across the Sudbury, Gt Cornard, Chilton and Gt Waldingfield area. We regard the failure of the landowner, Suffolk County Council, to develop this land, as amounting to land-banking, and a failure to fund council house building also. Therefore we are critical of the failure of the District Council to take up the offer of bridging finance for compulsory purchase, made by the Housing Minister to Arthur Charvonia in March 2018, publicised by a report in the local press. At the same time, we call for the Chilton Woods Masterplan to include the small modifications necessary to compensate existing built-up areas for loss of green space access, and to help conserve existing urban fringe biodiversity: by ensuring at least 30 metres width of green corridor the whole length of the southern edge (as laid down in LP17 of this Plan, para 1d, and maximising green features the shortest route from existing built-up areas to countryside ie west from the Tesco underpass.
Also, to divert development away from existing good urban fringe habitat, we are critical that the option of a garden city in Babergh near the A12 road, has been put off for the next Local Plan to consider, and ask for evaluation of this to start; this could for instance be located at some distance from Hadleigh, but near enough to help revive Hadleigh.
We object to the Core Policies identifying a western by-pass as the only option for Sudbury’s traffic, because it would be very harmful environmentally, in its broad north-south sweep across the northern meadows and railway walk, (also we request it be given as one of a number of alternatives to be urgently identified, as we believe it is unlikely to be a County or Regional funding priority in our lifetimes).

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17652

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Mr John Ambrose

Representation:

This is a great improvement with the previous draft plan, taking into account comment made.

Full text:

This is a great improvement with the previous draft plan, taking into account comment made.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17871

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr James Webster

Representation:

Babergh & Mid Suffolk District Council’s Regulation 18 Preferred Options July 2019 Joint Local Plan Consultation is not fit for purpose:

1) A paper copy of the “Sustainability Appraisal” [document (2)] was not available to inspect at the Drop-In venues.

2) Members of the public were unable to buy a copy of the Joint Local Plan online for several weeks during the Consultation.

3) Especially when using Tablets, small Laptops etc., Babergh & Mid Suffolk District Council’s website is confusing & not user friendly for the public.

4) Missing Policies Map Key (page 460) [Online Consultation Document]

Full text:

September 30 2019

Babergh & Mid Suffolk District Council’s Regulation 18 Preferred Options July 2019 Joint Local Plan Consultation Documents

Missing Consultation Document:

A) Babergh & Mid Suffolk Councils' held a number of public Drop-In Consultation Venues where members of the public could view the Joint Local Plan.

For those members of the public with poor or no internet access these Drop-In Consultation were essential to enable the viewing of the two main documents.

The Two Current Documents open to Consultation:

(1) “BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (Reg 18) - July 2019”
And
(2) “BMSDC Joint Local Plan – Preferred Options – Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019”

However,
A paper copy of the “Sustainability Appraisal” [document (2)] was not available to inspect at the Drop-In venues.
With half of the paper Consultation documents unavailable at the Drop-In venues, the public are not being kept correctly engaged or informed.

Further:
Consulation Document Problems Online:

B) If a member of the of the public could not attend any of the Drop-In venues and does not have good internet service but wishes to read a copy of the BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (Reg 18) - July 2019, an opportunity to purchase a copy is provided on the councils’ Joint Local Plan website:

“Purchase a hard copy of the Joint Local Plan”

Unfortunately, attempting to purchase a copy with a card payment, failed on several occasions.
A member of the public alerted the planning team to the inability to purchase a copy online. The council finally repaired the software fault on September 3rd 2019.

It appears that for half of the 10 week consultation, members of the public were unable to buy a copy of the Joint Local Plan online.

C) The Councils Consultation Website is difficult to navigate:

1) Local Plan Consultation Document: the “Contents” Page Index finishes at Page 460 but scrolling online stops at page 56.

2) The Local Plan “Sustainability Appraisal” Consultation Document: the “Contents” Page Index finishes at Page 175 but scrolling online continues to page 1774.

Especially when using Tablets, small Laptops etc., Babergh & Mid Suffolk District Council’s website is confusing & not user friendly for the public.

D)
Missing Policies Map Key (page 460) [Online Document]:

This document is the Legend that enables the deciphering of the colours & graphics used in the hundreds of maps and plans in the online Local Plan policy documents.

When viewing online the “BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (Reg 18) - July 2019”, the Councils' main Consultation document, Page No. 460, the Policies Map Key page, is missing and has not been able to be accessed online, by the general public, throughout the entire 10 week Consultation.

Conclusion:
Babergh & Mid Suffolk District Council’s Regulation 18 Preferred Options July 2019 Joint Local Plan Consultation is not fit for purpose.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17971

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Maggie Aldridge

Representation:

I object to the Stowmarket Area Action Plan being omitted from the JLP - The Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013 is an adopted policy until 2027 with key strands should continue beyond 2027. Landscape, heritage and biodiversity features precious to townspeople and the wider community have been omitted from the JLP

Full text:

1. 01 Introduction (page 5) I object to the Stowmarket Area Action Plan being omitted from the JLP - The Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013 is an adopted policy until 2027 with key strands should continue beyond 2027. Landscape, heritage and biodiversity features precious to townspeople and the wider community have been omitted from the JLP
2. 16 Local Policies - Healthy Communities and Infrastructure LP28 Designated Open Spaces (page 102) I object to LP28. We want a Local Green Space policy and process which is fair and consistent to all communities. Mid Suffolk residents of all towns and villages would welcome an equal opportunity to seek designation of a highly valued Local Green Space within the JLP subject to meeting the NPPF criteria. Stowmarket is one of many communities without a Neighbourhood Development Plan for genuine reasons. Communities where no adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) exists are discriminated
3. Green Buffers - I object to the omission of a policy to establish ‘green buffers’ or ‘strategic gaps’ which will prevent the coalescence of adjoining settlements. We want the JLP to respect the identity of neighbouring communities and to protect the open land in between settlement boundaries of neighbouring town and villages
Yours faithfully

Maggie Aldridge

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18065

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Baldwin

Representation:

I object to the fact that the JLP will replace the Stowmarket Area Action Plan (SAAP) (effective until 2027) but the JLP does not include it in its evidence base and has failed to take into consideration many of its strategic objectives and policies.
Please

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18366

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr David Boreham

Representation:

I object to the Stowmarket Area Action Plan being omitted from the JLP - The Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013 is an adopted policy until 2027 with key strands should continue beyond 2027. Landscape, heritage and biodiversity features precious to townspeople and the wider community have been omitted from the JLP

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to feedback the following points in regards to the joint local plan proposals;
1. 01 Introduction (page 5) I object to the Stowmarket Area Action Plan being omitted from the JLP - The Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013 is an adopted policy until 2027 with key strands should continue beyond 2027. Landscape, heritage and biodiversity features precious to townspeople and the wider community have been omitted from the JLP
2. 16 Local Policies - Healthy Communities and Infrastructure LP28 Designated Open Spaces (page 102) I object to LP28. We want a Local Green Space policy and process which is fair and consistent to all communities. Mid Suffolk residents of all towns and villages would welcome an equal opportunity to seek designation of a highly valued Local Green Space within the JLP subject to meeting the NPPF criteria. Stowmarket and Needham Market along with many communities are without a Neighbourhood Development Plan for genuine reasons. Communities where no adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) exists are discriminated
3. Green Buffers - I object to the omission of a policy to establish ‘green buffers’ or ‘strategic gaps’ which will prevent the coalescence of adjoining settlements. We want the JLP to respect the identity of neighbouring communities and to protect the open land in between settlement boundaries of neighbouring town and villages
Kind regards,
David Boreham

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18387

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: MSDC Green Group

Representation:

1.11 Protecting the “natural and built environment..” is no longer an adequate response to the climate and
biodiversity crisis. The purpose must be to enhance significantly.
1.12 add at end : Both the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) are out of date
following the declaration by the 2 Councils, and others in Suffolk, of a Climate Emergency. A major strategic
proposal (The Ipswich Northern Route) of which about 65% is in Mid Suffolk, is “supported” in JLP, but not
otherwise incorporated, such as a proportion of the 15,000 homes envisaged as part of the Northern Route
scheme.
1.14 improvements to the A14 is no longer a key infrastructure project, however 2 miles of worn out road
does need replacing.
1.19 Add community organisations to the list of organisations we work with.

Full text:

Please see attachment for submission on behalf of the group of 12 Mid Suffolk Green Party councillors.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18501

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Consider many aspects of the plan to be sound but identified issues which compromise the overall soundness of the plan. 4 main aspects where we find the Plan unsound and what is needed to make it sound:
a) Evidence Base for site allocations - Important sites are based on an understanding of their potential impact upon the historic environment. Strongly advise that Heritage Impact Assessments are prepared for LA053, LA055/LA054, LA041, LA008, LA060/LA061, LA075, LA001/LA002/LA003, LA078/LA079, LA084, LA088, LA089/LA090, and LA094/LA095.
b) Site allocation policies require more detail - further details provided per site;
c) Concerns regarding hamlet allocations and approach for settlement boundaries. Strongly advise all allocations are identified on the maps for small scale growth only, and policy is amended to include a new criterion to policy SP03 for heritage impact;
Number of changes to Historic Environment Policy (LP20)

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18689

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pettaugh Parish Council

Representation:

The Parish Council is gravely concerned about the timing of this consultation. 6 weeks of the consultation out of the total of 10 fell in the summer school holiday period greatly impacting on many to consider and to express a view on the Preferred Options document. Whilst the Parish Council prepared this initial response, it reserves the right to add further consultation comments as they may emerge because, in effect, there was only four weeks in
which to consider the proposals.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18706

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Tinklers Meadow Green Team

Representation:

Object to the omission of key aspects of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan (SAAP) 2013 which has the weight of an adopted policy until 2027. Object to the consultation process. BMSDC have not established an effective process for people to engage with and respond to the consultation process. Executive summary document of the Draft JLP made widely available through town and parish councils would have provided a higher level of support to local groups. Engagement with the general public is essential to empower people, increase confidence and understanding in order for individuals to feel their response is valued. Otherwise the consultation process is flawed.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments: