LA012 - Land north of Burstall Lane and west of B1113, Sproughton

Showing comments 1 to 18 of 18

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16467

Received: 07/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian HUNT

Representation:

I object to the plans on grounds of lack of supporting infrastructure to sustain such a large area of development in the Sproughton area.
ie roads, doctors surgery, schools, bus service{pathetic currently)

Full text:

I object to the plans on grounds of lack of supporting infrastructure to sustain such a large area of development in the Sproughton area.
ie roads, doctors surgery, schools, bus service{pathetic currently)

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16750

Received: 18/09/2019

Respondent: Christina Galvin

Representation:

Sproughton village is used heavily in rush hour traffic (to avoid the copdock roundabout) but it is a small village not designed for this type of traffic, and with all the parked cars it can become gridlocked - this would only get worse with further development here and in the surrounding areas.

Full text:

Sproughton village is used heavily in rush hour traffic (to avoid the copdock roundabout) but it is a small village not designed for this type of traffic, and with all the parked cars it can become gridlocked - this would only get worse with further development here and in the surrounding areas.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17084

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

Representation:

SPS objects to this allocation which is subject to a current planning application which we have objected to on the grounds of its disproportionate scale which fails to reflect the special character and morphology of the village and its rural landscape setting.

SPS objects to the term ‘close setting of heritage assets’ which is not helpful in protecting the significance of heritage assets which may have extensive settings contributing to their significance . ‘Close setting’ should be replaced with ‘setting’ as the extent of an asset's setting and contribution it makes to its significance should be assessed for each proposal.

Full text:

SPS objects to this allocation. This site is subject to a current planning application which we have objected to on the grounds of its disproportionate scale which fails to reflect the special character and morphology of the village and its rural landscape setting.

SPS objects to the use of the term ‘close setting of heritage assets’ within the policies accompanying the site allocations. It is unclear what the term ‘close setting’ refers to but it is not helpful in protecting the significance of heritage assets which may have extensive settings which contribute to the significance of the asset. The term is not compliant with the NPPF para 194 or Historic England Guidance Note The Setting of Heritage Assets Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition). ‘Close setting’ should be replaced with ‘setting’ as the extent of an asset's setting and the contribution it makes to the significance of a heritage asset should be assessed for each proposal.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17149

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Neil & Claire Fuller

Representation:

Object to the scale and location of housing development around Sproughton mainly because it will significantly impact on the environmental quality of the area and the health and well-being of the existing community, and therefore fails to deliver the framework objectives.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17545

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Nick Ridley

Representation:

Very difficult to understand how land used as allotments for decades can have been allowed to be put forward for Development. I understand it is also registered as an Asset of Community Value. Sets a precedent in allowing development north of B113 and involves a deviation at the end of Burstall Lane. Whilst this may marginally improve traffic flow at Sproughton X Roads, it is unclear how it will improve traffic flow and safety. Allotments should remain undisturbed in perpetuity and in my opinion be purchased from the FC Trust by Parish. I see no useful benefit for the Parish or District at all and it should be deleted.

Full text:

See attachment for submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17829

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Stella Blackwell

Representation:

Please refer to my comments made as part of the joint plan consultation back in December 2017, as my concerns remain about increased traffic through an already stressed village. I also strongly feel that adding 75 houses to such a central part of Sproughton would significantly change the character of this village. With Sproughton taking a significant housing allocation at Wolsey grange, is there really the need for more in the centre of the village?

Full text:

Please refer to my comments made as part of the joint plan consultation back in December 2017, as my concerns remain about increased traffic through an already stressed village. I also strongly feel that adding 75 houses to such a central part of Sproughton would significantly change the character of this village. With Sproughton taking a significant housing allocation at Wolsey grange, is there really the need for more in the centre of the village?

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18019

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Chris Brown

Representation:

Sproughton Parish appears to be providing the bulk of development land across Babergh. You highlight the pressures this puts on local services but your solution, "contribution to the satisfaction of the LPA, is woefully inadequate".
For example -
No capacity to expand medical practices at Hawthorn Drive or Pinewood.
You ask for contributions for junction improvements on the A1071. This is totally inadequate, as it takes no account of the problems that already exist accessing Ipswich from Bramford and Sproughton which will be exacerbated by the planned developments in both villages. No attempt is made to ask for contributions to improve public transport. Buses through Sproughton and Bramford have been cut. This is hardly "Ecologically sustainable planning".

Your inclusion in the JLP of site LA012 is unsustainable not only for the reasons laid out above but because:
• The development is outside the settlement boundary
• It is within a special landscape area
• It is in designated countryside
• It is being built on Grade 2 (very good) agricultural land in contravention of Babergh Local Plan alteration no 2 (2006) 143

You state that the allotment holders should be provided with "alternative provision of equal or greater quality". I doubt that the developer is capable of delivering on that.

In conclusion I object specifically to the development of site LA012 for the general and specific reasons stated above.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18273

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

Rights of Way within the vicinity of the site should be retained and enhanced to enable access to the countryside and active transport.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18548

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

The Grade II listed The Wild Man lies to the immediate south-east of LA053, with further listed buildings directly to the east of these, including the Grade II listed buildings (2 and 4, Lower Street, and Lower House. Development will need to ensure that any frontage to the site is designed so as to be sympathetic to setting of these Listed Buildings.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18827

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Powell

Representation:

Allotments on site of LA012 .These allotments have been here for a very long time. They are our heritage and in some cases our connection with our family past.A letter from the developer states, “On the matter of allotments, may I reassure you that we wish to maintain allotments in Sproughton, and could consider, via Pigeon, extending the area if there is a demonstrable need.” However this is at the expense of them allocating significantly more land and houses than the JLP proposes. There is no justification for such a trade off.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18830

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Powell

Representation:

The new JLP proposal to remove the Special Landscape Designation from this area an objective policy that protected this historic farmland scene.
The subjective landscape assessment policies proposed in the JLP to replace this will be opinion based, legally challengeable on appeal, and therefore potentially unviable to defend.It is unclear why the policy does not provide for the impact of this site on the designated Habitat sites in the HRA report.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19002

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Working Group

Representation:

The new JLP proposal to remove the Special Landscape Designation from this area removes an objective policy that protected this historic farmland scene.

It is unclear why the policy does not provide for the impact of this site on the designated Habitat sites in the HRA report. However, if it subsequently does then it appears that the HRA report neglected to consider the first recommended option of avoidance for relevant new development within the designated Habitat sites impact zone.
The watercourse is the River Gipping and the River Gipping is the Orwell so the discharge from this site will be hydraulically linked to the designated Orwell Habitats and should again fall within the assessment of the HRA.

Wildlife and Biodiversity is also a relevant as this site is ancient and established as a wildlife greenway between the wider landscape area and the Gipping Valley which has important significance not just for this site but on the wildlife within the Gipping Valley Corridor.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19085

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Ipswich Borough Council

Representation:

This is a new allocation for 75 dwellings to the west of Sproughton. The site sheets identifies a contribution towards junction improvements on the A1071 which IBC would support.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19095

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Parish Council

Representation:

The new JLP proposal to remove the Special Landscape Designation from this area removes an objective policy that protected this historic farmland scene.

It is unclear why the policy does not provide for the impact of this site on the designated Habitat sites in the HRA report

Wildlife and Biodiversity is also a relevant as this site is ancient and established as a wildlife greenway between the wider landscape area and the Gipping Valley which has important significance not just for this site but on the wildlife within the Gipping Valley Corridor.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19126

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Agent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd.

Representation:

Insert a new paragraph (below healthcare provision) as follows:
VII. Contributions, to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.
Provision of Additional Household Waste Recycling to become paragraph VIII.
Improving local pedestrian links to become paragraph IX.
Junction improvements on the A1071 to become paragraph X.
Full assessment of increased discharge on the watercourse, and relevant mitigation measures to become paragraph XI.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19350

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management

Agent: Turley

Representation:

Delivery Statement has set out how Land North Of Burstall Lane, Sproughton is both sustainable and capable of delivering approximately 100 new homes. In conclusion, Land North Of Burstall Lane, Sproughton will be a high-quality, landscape-led mixed-use scheme, providing real benefits to both future residents and the wider community of Sproughton. The Site is both suitable and deliverable and the draft allocation should be extended to allow for the delivery of a scheme which will provide a deliverable mixed-use allocation within the Local Plan.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19787

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Robin Milan

Representation:

This level of housing is unsustainable for our village.
Developments should be balanced not all in one area around Sproughton.
The local infrastructure, especially roads are not equipped for this level of development.
This will be devastating to local wildlife.
This will ruin the country essence of the village.

Full text:

This level of housing is unsustainable for our village.
Developments should be balanced not all in one area around Sproughton.
The local infrastructure, especially roads are not equipped for this level of development.
This will be devastating to local wildlife.
This will ruin the country essence of the village.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19867

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Rhona Jermyn

Representation:

The new JLP proposal to remove the Special Landscape Designation from this area removes an objective policy that protected this historic farmland scene.

It is unclear why the policy does not provide for the impact of this site on the designated Habitat sites in the HRA report. However, if it subsequently does then it appears that the HRA report neglected to consider the first recommended option of avoidance for relevant new development within the designated Habitat sites impact zone.
The watercourse is the River Gipping and the River Gipping is the Orwell so the discharge from this site will be hydraulically linked to the designated Orwell Habitats and should again fall within the assessment of the HRA.

Wildlife and Biodiversity is also a relevant as this site is ancient and established as a wildlife greenway between the wider landscape area and the Gipping Valley which has important significance not just for this site but on the wildlife within the Gipping Valley Corridor.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments: