Introduction

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 68

Support

Representation ID: 430

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: RSPB Stour Estuary and Wolves Wood (Mr Mark Nowers) [2397]

Representation:

The RSPB supports the intentions to address environmental considerations in this consultation document.

Object

Representation ID: 705

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Martyn Levett [2700]

Representation:

Your report fails to mention the impact of Brexit on the your projections with all the uncertainties of population, need and employment. What are the contingency plans for a reversal of the projected trends: once the policy is adopted, do you have any ability to change the adopted plan.
Your report constantly refers to a "sustainable basis" which is wholly premised n the speculative assumptions, without any robust tested data, rather than replicated figures from previous reports which are internally inconsistent and erroneous.

Object

Representation ID: 731

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group [1345]

Representation:

To weigh what Babergh extrapolates as its future population, and compare what is actually achievable, in terms of local employment versus long-distance commuting; which this plan fails to do. The first tasks should be: to decide what social housing can be achieved, and to identify a 'bottom line' for environmental and social safeguards; the process has failed to do this, and has in many ways treated these as afterthoughts.

Comment

Representation ID: 3100

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris [3613]

Representation:

Safeguarding value in the local plan when determining applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 3102

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris [3613]

Representation:

Safeguarding value in the Local Plan by holding to conditions imposed and obligations agreed.

Comment

Representation ID: 3362

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Lindsey Parish Council (Victoria Waples) [3500]

Representation:

Lindsey Parish Council have considered the forward planning document for Babergh and have some comments to make. It is aware of the need for housing and is also aware that we must not be guilty of 'nimby-ism,'. However, growth must be in line with need, as well as service provision, and be in tune with the characteristics of the area.
Regarding the document and its specific questions, not all are pertinent to Lindsey. The responses submitted are, according to the Parish Council, seen as being particularly relevant to Lindsey.

Object

Representation ID: 3815

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Julian Manyon [3660]

Representation:

My objection is to the paragraph in the Introduction relating to construction of a "Western relief Road" for Sudbury. The back to front logic of the wording suggests that Babergh should seek to alter Sudbury's natural growth to the east and encourage housing and commercial development south west of the town in order to obtain funding for a western bypass. Thus the beautiful landscape enshrined by Gainsborough in "Mr and Mrs Andrews" should be sacrificed in order to build a road which, traffic figures show, does little to help Sudbury. Crazy!

Comment

Representation ID: 4529

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: LAWSHALL PARISH COUNCIL (Mrs Dorothy Griggs) [3801]

Representation:

The Parish Council has given careful consideration to the content of the document, particularly in the light of the Lawshall Neighbourhood Plan being 'made' in October 2017. Set out below are the Council's specific comments to relevant questions in the consultation document. Given the newness of the Neighbourhood Plan, we would be happy to work with the District Council to identify how the emerging local plan and the adopted Neighbourhood Plan can be integrated to provide a consistent approach across the parish that accords with the local populations wishes, as supported by the Neighbourhood Plan Referendum.

Comment

Representation ID: 6219

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen) [3965]

Representation:

Attached is the full text of our submission. Individual answers to questions and option preferences will also be submitted interactively.

Comment

Representation ID: 6570

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Powell [2813]

Representation:

5 year supply; Why accept projections based on out of date data that set a housing need greater than the present number that they are failing to achieve anyway?

Support

Representation ID: 6838

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Thurston Parish Council (Mrs Victoria Waples) [4036]

Representation:

The Parish Council of Thurston is supportive of all moves towards greater certainty in strategic planning policy which will allow development planning to follow sustainable guidelines.

Object

Representation ID: 7766

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Dr Ian Russell [3868]

Representation:

The people of Sudbury do not want "development" to be "planned to secure the delivery of the Sudbury Western Relief Road". We do not support that disastrous route because it does not support us. The beneficiaries would be some lorries and commuters from elsewhere. The strategic plan must recognise there is too much traffic for Ballingdon Bridge to be the only main route between Babergh and Braintree. What we need are roads for the growing communities east of Sudbury and roads that keep all lorries and as many other vehicles as possible away from the historic centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 7871

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr David Watts [4132]

Representation:

General: All this is well and good. But if you are to allow all these houses ensuring the infrastructure is in place to support them is CRUCIAL. This is mentioned on pages 96 to 101. BUT it is others responsibility to provide the required roads, GP facilities, schools etc and judging by past performance these aspects will be ignored. PLEASE FIND A WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IS PROVIDED. Otherwise roads and parking will become more clogged, GP waiting times will lengthen and schools will be full.

And what about jobs for the extra people?

Comment

Representation ID: 7888

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Green Light Trust (Mr Ashley Seaborne) [4127]

Representation:

Green Light Trust is an environmental charity established in 1989. We have worked with local people in communities across Suffolk to improve the environment in which they live. Over 50,000 people have contributed to developing new woodlands, hedgerows and wildspaces. Based in Lawshall and conjunction with the Primary School, community group Forest for Our Children, we have made a substantial contribution to enhancing the village environment and reversing the national trend of decline in bird, plant and butterfly numbers. We believe that for every new human created there should be a new animal habitat. Please consider our comments to questions

Comment

Representation ID: 8333

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr David Barnes [4165]

Representation:

The statement that "Housing and economic growth is a key factor in securing investment into existing and new infrastructure projects. Development should be planned to secure the delivery of key infrastructure projects across the County" is very concerning: do you propose building more houses in order to build more roads? This smacks of development for its own sake. In particular I am very concerned about the Sudbury West Relief road proposals and the potential serious impact on the town's Water Meadows, probably the most important piece of natural environment and amenity in the town.

Object

Representation ID: 8441

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Beiley [3324]

Representation:

The end date of 2036 is too far distant and an interim date e.g. end 2022 should be inserted to enable a review to be undertaken of progress and take proper account of the impact of potential changes that will result from Brexit e.g. greater control of inward migration,the effect on housing and infrastructure demand and changes to local employment and industry.

Comment

Representation ID: 8684

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince [3825]

Representation:

* Development shouldn't lead to communities losing their identities by swamping and creeping coalescence (merging of communities).
* Location of growth should be spread more pragmatically across Babergh rather than fewer large sites
* The following should be considered further for Sproughton: better transport infrastructure, more school places, accessible healthcare services, maintain and enhance environmental assets.

Object

Representation ID: 8738

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Iona Parker [4227]

Representation:

I do not support a Sudbury western relief road. The impact on the natural and historic environment to the west of Sudbury would be too great. Other options for relieving congestion in Sudbury should be explored. There is no evidence that the amount of north/south through traffic in Sudbury is sufficient to justify a western relief road. No development is planned by the neighbouring authority, Braintree District Council between Sudbury and Halstead. The Braintree DC emerging Local Plan shows development elsewhere in the District.

Support

Representation ID: 9035

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Tendring District Council (Mr William Fuller) [4254]

Representation:

Tendring District Council broadly supports the issues and options contained within this draft Plan. We are pleased to see that Babergh and Mid Suffolk Plan for their OAHN. It is worth noting our comments on infrastructure and transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 9074

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Daniel lord-vince [4252]

Representation:

As a general principle, planning policy should ensure a proportional allocation of housing and employment land across the Districts, sympathetic to and in support of the characteristics and needs of existing communities. A total of 9,446 dwellings are proposed (sum of dwellings across all sites specified within the SHLAA). However, once the net number of dwellings is calculated having taken into account planning applications granted, in progress etc, the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) is reduced to 4,210. It appears that 2,320 of these dwellings i.e. 55.11% of the total development proposed in Babergh is designated for Sproughton.

Object

Representation ID: 9310

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Mr AJ Spratt [4331]

Representation:

The provided maps and descriptions are very poor and not understandable (SS0245 and SS0945).

The online comments procedure is extremely complicated and impossible to use for the vast majority of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 9334

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Nayland with Wissington Parish Council (Mrs D Hattrell) [2379]

Representation:

As a preface, Nayland with Wissington Parish Council queries the robustness of the evidence for projected new growth in Babergh that is assumed throughout the Strategic Plan and Consultation Document. These documents express trends as certainties and yet, this Council believes that economically, we are living at a very uncertain time. The Council is sceptical about the optimistic projected growth of jobs, for example in Sudbury. The limited number of access points into and out of Babergh contributes to factors preventing or inhibiting growth on the projected scale as identified in the Consultation Document.

Object

Representation ID: 9492

Received: 14/11/2017

Respondent: Cllr John Hinton [4363]

Representation:

The Plan (page 7) mentions other Local Authorities, but not the North Essex ones and Essex CC . Growth followed by infrastructure improvement as suggested is what has got us into our current logistical logjam and is holding back economic growth both in employment and house building:- only the naïve would follow a similar pattern. Why is this the pattern?

Object

Representation ID: 9496

Received: 14/11/2017

Respondent: Cllr John Hinton [4363]

Representation:

As a plan it is flawed both in technical content and layout with omissions and errors. Its size and the fact that it covers two distinct Council areas make it a complicated and unworkable set of proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 9533

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Mark Blackwell [4368]

Representation:

I am not impressed by the consultation as a whole. It is too long, too complicated, too technical and access is too difficult. I understand that you think you have exceeded your statutory requirement, however you have failed to communicate in a meaningful way, or allow meaningful contribution.

This consultation needs to be done again, broken down and put in simple layman's terms. Methods of response need to be similarly simple. You will have missed out on a large number of responses by those who are daunted by the process or feel the whole system too complex and difficult. It is a shame as everyone should have the right to comment, not just those who are able to navigate their way around the documents and have a very significant amount of time to devote it it.

Object

Representation ID: 9552

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Chris Brown [4349]

Representation:

I wish to register an interest in being kept informed of progress with the local plan (BMSDC JLP) and would appreciate acknowledgement of receipt of this document. At the same time I would like to register my serious concerns at the short time period given for the public response, and the abysmal design of the consultation document, whose complexity and phraseology makes meaningful response within the allotted time frame consuming and incomplete. It leaves a distinct feeling that the whole process is a sham.

Object

Representation ID: 9685

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Miss R P Baillon [4382]

Representation:

It is hoped that Mid Suffolk residents' opinions will be taken into account when finalising the Joint Local Plan particularly as it is well known that, in the past, little notice has been taken of the comments made by the Parish Council and individuals regarding the developments taking place in Debenham.

Concerns over the suitability of 'Market Pyghtle' and Cherry Terry developments and developers failing to adhere to the planning permissions granted.

Object

Representation ID: 9794

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Colin Johnston [3795]

Representation:

We need the local authority to take a firmer line in speaking up for the rural areas, their distinctiveness in terms of landscape and heritage qualities and the importance of small being beautiful. The draft local plan is (necessarily, I concede) statistical and functional, but where is there an inflection to beauty, quality of life and the health related benefits of walking along lanes and ditches and having sweeping views? When you have crunched every bit of data and tarmaced as much open space as you can what are you left with?

Object

Representation ID: 9798

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Simon Wood [3570]

Representation:

I have attempted to answer some of the questions in your Consultation document.
What a dreadful document it is.
Do you really expect a high response rate?

Engage properly with local residents on a level they can understand and interact with.
Many voices will go unheard with the current model.

Poor form Babergh and Mid Suffolk.

Comment

Representation ID: 9838

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Stowupland Parish Council (Claire Pizzey) [4407]

Representation:

The document is light on policies so topics upon which comments should be sought are not there. There are too many questions and some do not clearly relate to development of a policy or a choice between two suggested possible policies.