04 - Implementation

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16447

Received: 06/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris

Representation:

The text says "04.01... at least every 5 years. A review of the planning policies will consider ... where policies are not performing as intended.

Full text:

The text says "04.01... at least every 5 years. A review of the planning policies will consider ... where policies are not performing as intended.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17410

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Stradbroke Parish Council

Representation:

This is not effective and not specific enough.
The monitoring and implementation process needs to include consultation of made neighbourhood plan areas in the setting of targets and means of delivery based on those specific plan policies and objectives.

Full text:

This is not effective and not specific enough.
The monitoring and implementation process needs to include consultation of made neighbourhood plan areas in the setting of targets and means of delivery based on those specific plan policies and objectives.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17444

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Stradbroke Parish Council

Representation:

This is not effective and not specific enough.
The monitoring and implementation process needs to include consultation of made neighbourhood plan areas in the setting of targets and means of delivery based on those specific plan policies and objectives.
It is an opportunity to design in a role for Parish Councils to be included as part of monitoring and implementation processes, not simply to be consulted prior to planning applications

Full text:

This is not effective and not specific enough.
The monitoring and implementation process needs to include consultation of made neighbourhood plan areas in the setting of targets and means of delivery based on those specific plan policies and objectives.
It is an opportunity to design in a role for Parish Councils to be included as part of monitoring and implementation processes, not simply to be consulted prior to planning applications

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18007

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Debenham Parish Council

Representation:

The Debenham Parish Council recommend that the authority adopt the Local Plan As a matter of urgency, in order to increase likelihood of planning applications that propose sustainable development that meets the needs of local communities.

Full text:

The Debenham Parish Council recommend that the authority adopt the Local Plan As a matter of urgency, in order to increase likelihood of planning applications that propose sustainable development that meets the needs of local communities.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18393

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: MSDC Green Group

Representation:

This should be followed by a section on Monitoring.

Full text:

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

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18941

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Working Group

Representation:

Concern about the ‘ambitious’ vision for growth and expansion is that the data used is so old it does not account either for the Brexit Vote or its looming consequences.

The lack of Objective policy in this JLP threatens to undermine the democratic process.
The predominantly subjective nature of this document removes that direction and refers direction to opinions of unelected officers potentially creating in any case of objection a legally un-defendable difference of opinion.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19023

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Parish Council

Representation:

Concern about the ‘ambitious’ vision for growth and expansion is that the data used is so old it does not account either for the Brexit Vote or its looming consequences.
The lack of Objective policy in this JLP threatens to undermine the democratic process.

The predominantly subjective nature of this document removes direction and refers direction to opinions of unelected officers potentially creating in any case of objection a legally un-defendable difference of opinion

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19214

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Babergh Green Party

Representation:

4.02 - add 'progress towards decarbonisation targets and' to paragraph.

To complement the requirements for the JLP for Implementation and Duty to Co-operate the Plan must also include a discrete Section on its duty to carry out research into how to achieve a net zero carbon future for the two Districts by 2030. This research should explore possibilities, decide options, set targets and create a system for regular monitoring of progress towards this overriding Objective.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19283

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces/SOCS

Representation:

We understood the purpose of this review consultation/ Babergh & Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan
Preferred Option/was to achieve an ‘alignment’ with the partner Local Authorities in the Ipswich
Strategic Area, in order that each separate Local Plan can achieve ‘Soundness’ required under
the legislation.
In our view it does not achieve that.
The statement of common ground is not fit for purpose.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19303

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Representation:

The impacts of the Ipswich Northern Route project should be fully taken into account when drafting the monitoring framework. This, in addition to the prospect of unmet housing needs arising from the tightly bounded Ipswich Borough over the plan period, are factors that will need to be taken into account over the plan period and built into any monitoring framework. Need to include a trajectory within the Joint Local Plan illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period in line with the requirement set out in paragraph 73 of the NPPF.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19510

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr G. Josselyn

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation:

We note the reference to regular monitoring and review. This needs to be set against an understood and clear baseline so that interventions can be judged in terms of their effectiveness. It is also worthwhile that flexibility is endorsed in the Local Plan to allow for adaptation of schemes to suit future circumstances. This should be accompanied by a clear statement defining the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, including promoters of sites and development in the Districts. This is an area where many communities express concern through not understanding who will be leading on certain key issues. Very often the only time this is expressed is at the planning application stage.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19615

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

It is important that the (5 year) review process is robust. This should include clear monitoring triggers and a series of specific actions. The emphasis should not only be on the immediate monitoring year, but the future monitoring year also, in order that the housing land supply can be ‘topped up’ as required.

Full text:

Land north of Church Road has the benefit of outline planning permission granted on appeal on 29 July 2019 (Mid Suffolk reference DC/17/05423; appeal reference APP/W3520/W/18/3209219). Endurance Estates consider that the site should be allocated for approximately 81 dwellings and that the settlement boundary be redrawn to include the site. This will clarify the site’s Development Plan status to applicants, the LPA and local stakeholders. This is required for the Plan to be effective.

Moreover, the Local Plan contains a number of inconsistencies in the approach to site allocations and settlement boundaries, in the settlement of Bacton as well as others. As a general point, a consistent approach is necessary. We suggest that:

• Sites which do not have planning permission are identified as Allocations and the settlement boundary extended around these sites;
• Sites which already have planning permission are identified as Existing Permissions or Commitments, and the settlement boundary extended around these sites;
• Sites which are not proposed for allocation, and which do not have planning permission, are excluded from the settlement boundary; and
• All new allocations and existing permissions to be listed in the housing trajectory.

Conclusion
Land north of Church Road, Bacton, has the benefit of outline planning permission. In common with the approach taken in the Local Plan to other sites with planning permission, Endurance Estates consider that the site should be allocated for approximately 81 dwellings and that the settlement boundary be redrawn to include the site.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19838

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Representation:

Concern about the ‘ambitious’ vision for growth and expansion is that the data used is so old it does not account either for the Brexit Vote or its looming consequences.

The lack of Objective policy in this JLP threatens to undermine the democratic process.
The predominantly subjective nature of this document removes that direction and refers direction to opinions of unelected officers potentially creating in any case of objection a legally un-defendable difference of opinion.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments: