Introduction

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 68

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 430

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: RSPB Stour Estuary and Wolves Wood

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 705

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Martyn Levett

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 731

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 3100

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris

Representation:

Safeguarding value in the local plan when determining applications.

Full text:

In the past, the value of the adopted Babergh Local Plan for shaping communities and managing development has been diminished, when on occasion the planning officer has recommended permission be granted to applications which are not in accordance with the Council's adopted local plan.
To safeguard the value of the replacement joint local plan, planning officers must be bound to recommend refusal of planning permission for each application submitted for determination until such time as the application fully meets all the current adopted policies of the local plan at the time of determination.
Should the council find that a submitted proposal is not in accordance with the local plan, but nevertheless feels the proposal has merit, then the council may attempt to modify the local plan (in accordance with consultation procedures) such that the adoption of the change into the local plan would render the application compliant.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 3102

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris

Representation:

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

Full text:

In the past, the value of conditions imposed and obligations agreed as necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms has been lost, when the Mid Suffolk Council has allowed the conditions and obligations set at a public inquiry to be waived in the local determination of a later duplicate application for the same development.
To safeguard the value of policies adopted in the Local Plan, developers must not be permitted to later escape conditions imposed and obligations agreed. Planning officers considering later similar applications must be bound to include equivalent or better conditions and agree equivalent or better obligations as were agreed in the development originally permitted.
Should the council find that a later similar application omits or dilutes some conditions imposed and obligations previously agreed as necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, but nevertheless feels the change has merit, then the council may attempt to modify the local plan (in accordance with consultation procedures) such that the adoption of the change in the local plan would render the imposition of those previous conditions and obligations unnecessary.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 3362

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Lindsey Parish Council

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 3815

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Julian Manyon

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!

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I understand that you are promoting a Local Plan which incorporates the aspiration for a western bypass or "Relief Road" for Sudbury. I wish to register my strong objection to this project and I note in particular the illogical 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 ... such as ...
the Sudbury Western Relief Road."

This appears to be a reference to the so-called "development area" shown on the map on page 26 of the "Sudbury Business Case" recently produced by Suffolk County Council. May I point out that this development area sits in, and would obliterate, the superb rural view of Sudbury depicted by the town's great artist Thomas Gainsborough in his celebrated painting, "Mr and Mrs Andrews" which hangs in the National Gallery. This view, which remains largely intact, is a major heritage asset which, in more sophisticated hands, would be used to promote tourism in Sudbury. Instead, Babergh District Council appears determined to destroy it.

May I also point out that most of the development area Babergh has its eye on actually sits in Essex and I would like to ask if Babergh has the approval of Essex County Council for these development plans.

This development obsession is, of course, a tacit admission that a western bypass would do very little to relieve Sudbury's traffic. Suffolk County Council is still refusing to release the full figures from last year's traffic survey and its " Business Case" only says coyly on page 24 that,

"The reduction of traffic in the town is not as large as first might be expected."

However, we have in the Mouchel Report of 2002, which cost Suffolk CC £375,000 of public money, a reliable picture of the effects a bypass would have.

In the first few pages of their report Mouchel set out to explain the characteristics of traffic in Sudbury, in particular that through traffic, which is the only sort of traffic a western bypass would serve, represents a very small percentage of vehicular movements in the town. The report stated on page 3:

"...the vast majority of trips accessing the Sudbury and Great Cornard area have a purpose for being in the area. The extent of through traffic in Sudbury and Great Cornard is low ranging from 7% of all trips in the morning and inter peak periods to 11% in the evening peak. This is a fundamental statistic in shaping the form that a transport system should take for the area (my italics)."

Mouchel went on to say (p. 18):

"The assessment of the traffic issues suggests that no case exists for a bypass on transport or congestion grounds alone. It is unlikely that a scheme approached in that way would be successful through the whole public enquiry and funding procedure."

There is little reason to suppose that the picture has changed since 2002. It is certainly possible that overall traffic has increased although the extent of this has been less than previously anticipated a fact which was highlighted in the AECOM Sudbury Transport Study you commissioned in October 2011 which concluded that there was a "reduced need" for Local Transport Action Plan proposals at present.

Like Mouchel, the Aecom Study noted that "the vast majority of trips accessing the Sudbury and Great Cornard areas have a purpose for being there with low levels of through traffic identified". Most significantly, AECOM found that "approximately a fifth of trips that enter the town centre on the A131 in either direction will continue straight through the town without stopping". You will appreciate that the A131 is far from the only means for traffic to enter Sudbury, but it is the only road that a western bypass would seek to relieve. Accordingly, the maximum that a western bypass could achieve would be to divert a fraction of the c.20% of vehicles which travel on the A131 without stopping, which would be an even smaller fraction of the entire number of vehicles entering Sudbury from all directions. The maximum overall relief provided by a western bypass might be in the order of 5-10% of traffic entering Sudbury. This stands against a previously identified target that any bypass should achieve a 70-80% reduction in traffic flows. You will appreciate that such a reduction (or anything approaching it) is simply impossible on the basis of available data and central government funding for such a project is therefore unlikely.

In fact, recent commercial developments in Sudbury have ensured that local traffic continues to make up the overwhelming majority of vehicle movements. Since the Mouchel Report a new large Sainsbury's supermarket has opened in the south east corner of the town, the nearby Waitrose has sharply increased its trade, large areas of new housing have been built in Great Cornard and the south eastern section of the industrial estate has expanded. To suggest that development should now be concentrated at the southern end of a possible bypass is to ignore natural economic development and turn logic on its head.

The Suffolk Free Press recently put forward an alternative route to the east and the Mouchel Report could not have been more clear in its comparison of a western and a south-eastern route on the questions of effectiveness, cost and environmental damage. It found that a western bypass would be less effective, significantly more expensive and more environmentally damaging than a south-eastern route which it declared to be, "the most efficient scheme in traffic and environmental terms" (p. 19).

In terms of impact on the environment Mouchel declared the western bypass to have "the most adverse impact" of the available options (p.12). The report stated (p. 15):

"From an environmental perspective, all of the western bypass related options...are likely to have a damaging impact upon the natural environment...the results clearly show...that the negative environmental implications combined largely with the cost of implementation do not sufficiently offset these negatives to yield an overall positive result."

In the years since the Mouchel Report was published the environmental drawbacks of a western bypass have grown and become more apparent. At the northern end of the route Suffolk and Essex County Councils have now confirmed an extensive network of footpaths which include the former railway line now officially designated as a PROW and named The Valley Trail as well as three new footpaths across our land and the neighbouring Kiplings Meadow (see plan attached). At the same time there have been significant advances in restoring the ancient and traditional meadowlands and habitats to the west of Sudbury, with a substantial increase in the volume and variety of plants and animals in that area. All of this would be heavily damaged by a western bypass which would encircle the southern meadows with a belt of concrete, steel and pollution, while cutting off the town from the surrounding countryside where many residents love to walk, cycle or ride.

There is also greater recognition of the destruction a bypass built on hundreds of metres of raised embankment would do to beautiful riverside grazing land like Borley Hall Meadow and the risk of flooding in Long Melford and Sudbury which could result. Borley Hall Meadow is part of a large flood plain which accommodates vast quantities of water when, as happens regularly, the Stour breaks its banks. The first attached photograph shows this meadow flooded last year. The second photographic attachment shows the entire northern section of the proposed western bypass under water in a previous year. It is obvious that filling the flood plain with a massive raised embankment would simply force the water into other areas with potentially serious consequences. After the damaging floods in other parts of the country this is an issue which requires careful consideration and leaves a western route looking like an out of date design seriously out of tune with modern concerns.

All this is why more than 3,500 people have so far signed the two petitions against a western bypass (link to the petitions are below). This shows that times have changed. Growing numbers of people are unwilling to see their countryside trashed in the names of "growth" and "development". I would submit that these popular feelings cannot, and should not, be ignored.

Yours sincerely,


Julian Manyon

Borley Hall

Tel: 01787 372141


https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-transport-no-bypass-near-sudbury-water-meadows
http://assets.change.org/photos/8/gd/ds/xbgddSYDhfznkFe-1600x900-noPad.jpg?1507313542
Sign the Petition
www.change.org
Secretary of State for Transport : No Bypass near Sudbury Water Meadows

https://www.change.org/p/james-cartlidge-mp-urge-the-government-to-fund-a-road-for-residents-around-sudbury-hands-off-water-meadows

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 4529

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: LAWSHALL PARISH COUNCIL

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.

Full text:

Thank you for consulting Lawshall Parish Council on the Joint Local Plan: Consultation Document (August 2017). The Parish Council has given careful consideration to the content of the document and its questions, 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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 6219

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: MSDC Green Group

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 6570

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Powell

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?

Full text:

5 Year supply
It is recognised that a primary reason for creating a new JLP is that the councils are failing to provide the 5 year supply of development sites. This failure may result in government taking over administration of planning applications. However this in itself throws up a multitude of questions not addressed in this JLP.
* This is becoming a problem nationwide. Is it possible that the Government could set up a department to deal with all the planning applications from the massive number of councils that are failing?
* What is the main problem here? We have seen the council failing to apply their own policies so perhaps the basic NPPF may be better.
* I have to question if councils are still public services, only the elected councillors are there to represent the community. Is the primary interest now profit and loss.The electorate pay their council tax but the feeling is that the council is not accountable to the electorate it is supposed to serve.
* However if LPA's loose their authority over planning they loose a large chunk of income so who are they beholden to?
* So if the council is failing to achieve the 5 year supply now and builders are failing to build (over 2000 approved home applications laying dormant in BDC area) why not set an achievable Housing Need objective? If the present demand isn't being met how can they expect to achieve even more? Why have they accepted data that is unreliable because it makes no consideration for Brexit when a more up to date analysis would almost certainly provide a smaller growth figure that might be achievable?

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 6838

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Thurston Parish Council

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 7766

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Dr Ian Russell

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.

Full text:

This is an objection to the proposed Sudbury Western Relief Road. I support the rest of the plan in general.

Public opinion is divided over the proposed Sudbury Western Relief Road. There are more opponents than supporters. Besides the supporters have come out in favour of a bypass not the proposed route, whatever it is, across the heritage landscape and water meadows between Ballingdon and Rodbridge.

Babergh is seeking a new vision for Sudbury and so are we. Everyone wants to cut congestion, revive the centre for modern life, and enhance the character of the historic town at the heart of the Stour Valley.

Achievement of those ambitions is essential to the economy and growth of Greater Sudbury and its communities. Business will come to Sudbury when it shows itself to be a great town. A generous pedestrian area around Market Hill will the best possible sign that it is.

An plan to keep all HGVS out of the centre, and as many other vehicles as possible, will be the stimulate action to transform the town.

Sudbury has gone without the roads it needs for over 40 years since abandoning the the plan to build a viaduct or bridge over the railway and Stour at Great Cornard. The result is almost 30,000 vehicle movements every day at the Belle Vue junction.

Today almost all traffic from Babergh to Braintree must go through Belle Vue and the market place before crossing Ballingdon Bridge over the Stour. That traffic is stifling Sudbury. The key question is where to build a second bridge: in a summer grazing meadow at Borley, to the south of Great Cornard, somewhere else or nowhere at all.

All reasonable options must be identified and evaluated at a strategic level from all points of view. The initial preference must be for a bridge to the south of Great Cornard because it would be of significant value to many residents.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 7871

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr David Watts

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?

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 7888

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Green Light Trust

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

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 8333

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr David Barnes

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 8441

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Beiley

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 8684

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

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.

Full text:

* 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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 8738

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Iona Parker

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9035

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Tendring District Council

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.

Full text:

Babergh and Mid-Suffolk Local Plan Consultation (2017)
Thank you for consulting Tendering District Council. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the joint emerging Local Plan. This response is an officer level reply and should be taken as such.
We are pleased to see that the Plan period of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Local Plan (BMSLP) will generally run inline with the emerging Tendring District Local Plan and the North Essex Authorities Local Plan.
We do not intend to make representations to all questions. Where questions are not referred to, we do not wish to comment.
Responses to questions:
1. The vision already published by the joint Councils appears to be acceptable. It is, however, considered that within the 'Profile & Context' section, reference should be made to transport links and major settlements that adjoin the joint district area, within north Essex.
2. The objectives mentioned appear to be acceptable.
3. No further objectives are advised to be identified.
4. It is considered that the priorities already mentioned appear to be acceptable.
5. -
5a The Council deems that point 9 of the 'Key planning issue' table should include Tendring District Council as Babergh and Tendring share the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. Cooperative working will need to be undertaken in regards to this AONB. The Council deems the first 8 points of this table to be suitable.
6. No further issues are advised to be identified.
7. The Council agrees with option HR1 regarding setting housing requirement at OAN level.
8. The Council agrees that a contingency for allocated sites seems reasonable.
9. -
10. Should the supply of housing fall below a 5 year threshold, the reserve sites should come forward.
11. The Council deems SET2 to be the most appropriate which included a broader range of criteria and settlements relationships'.
12. -
13. Whilst the Council has no specific views on the housing spatial distribution, it is considered that the joint authorities should plan for their own objectively assessed need and not rely upon development occurring in surrounding districts.
14. -
15. The Council consider that the lead in time for a new settlement may well be too great for this plan period. There could then be a risk that Babergh and Mid-Suffolk's housing need is not met and must be met by surrounding councils. Tendring would not support this as an approach.
16. The Council agrees that meeting the Nationally Described Space Standards would be appropriate
17. -
18. We believe the market should dictate the type and scale of houses coming forward
19. We believe the market should dictate the type and scale of houses coming forward
20. We believe the market should dictate the type and scale of houses coming forward
21. -
22. It is considered that Babergh and Mid-Suffolk's viability testing should inform them on the correct percentage
23. We consider all aspects of infrastructure to be as important as one another. The Councils should look at applications on a case by case basis.
24. -
25. -
26. -
27. -
28. -
29. We believe the Councils should address their own need of traveller and showpeople pitches as identified in your studies.
30. -
31. -
32. -
33. -
34. -
35. -
36. -
37. -
38. The Council agrees with the joint Local Plan in that ECON2 appears to be the best course of action with added flexibility designated for employment sites.
39. -
40. -
41. -
42. -
43. -
44. -
45. -
46. -
47. -
48. -
49. -
50. -
51. The Council agrees with the principle of BIO 2 although any inter-authority collaboration with Tendring District Council would need to be considered at a later date. The Council supports the principle of enhancing protected designated sites/areas.
52. -
53. -
54. -
55. -
56. -
57. -
58. -
59. -
60. -
61. -
62. -
63. The Council deems INF2 to be the more appropriate. As a policy led response to infrastructure. It is preferable to one that would rely solely on 'The Framework'
64. -
65. It is considered that thought would need to be given to the highway connection between north Essex and south Suffolk.
66. -
67. -
68. -
69. -
70. -
71. -
72. -
73. -
74. -
75. -
76. -
77. The Council deems that this point was covered in the settlement hierarchy earlier in the joint Local Plan.
78. -
79. -

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9074

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Daniel lord-vince

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.

Full text:

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9310

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Mr AJ Spratt

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.

Full text:

Comments on Babergh and mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan
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.
I find it almost impossible to comment on the overall proposals without knowing what
improvements are proposed to roads in the area. Swan Hill is currently a log jam at peak
times and any expansion will make life more impossible and hazardous for villagers.
The exit from the village from The Street onto Chapel Lane is dangerous now and would
become more so with increased traffic density.
I accept the need for some sensible, properly planned expansion of the village in a
controlled manner.
Industrial areas should be well away from the village (in particular SS0945). Existing
families should not be subjected to increased levels of noise and pollution.
The existence of Gladwells at Copdock Mill ( it has been there for decades) should not be
a reason to turn adjacent land into an industrial estate.
This land would be better utilised to provide incremental increases in housing
provision and local amenities (retirement accommodation, school, doctors' surgery
etc.)
9 November 2017
Mr AJ Spratt

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9334

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Nayland with Wissington Parish Council

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.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9492

Received: 14/11/2017

Respondent: Cllr John Hinton

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?

Full text:

See full scanned representation attachment

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9496

Received: 14/11/2017

Respondent: Cllr John Hinton

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.

Full text:

See full scanned representation attachment

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9533

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Mark Blackwell

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.

Full text:

Good evening,

I've just completed a second marathon effort to complete the consultation. I haven't managed to answer everything I would want to and haven't fully understood a lot of the technical language or look at some the document referred to.

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.

Mark Blackwell

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9552

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Chris Brown

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.

Full text:

Sir or madam
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.

chris Brown

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9685

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Miss R P Baillon

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.

Full text:

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.

In the case of the named development, 'Market Pyghtle', comments from the Parish Council and individuals were not taken into account and four large houses which are out of all proportion to the size of the site involved have been built with minimally sized gardens. This is interesting when the word 'pyghtle' is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning a 'small plot of land'. So presumably, the developer realised the site consisted of a small area and yet submitted plans for comparatively large houses and was granted permission to build them. In relation to this, I understand there was a competition in the Primary School to provide a name for the site and residents from the village also contributed. Despite these suggestions, the developer appears to have had his way regarding the name of the site. Also, of course, one house is in Chancery Lane, another in Great Back Lane and two in The Butts, each could have been given a number in its respective road.

No suitable houses or apartments were built for first-time buyers on this plot. Not only that, a flint wall of several hundred years was knocked down with the statement that its foundations were not safe. This must have been obvious given that the developers had had to clear the site of contamination and thus inevitably made the wall unstable due to the necessary work carried out on the soil adjacent to it. Instead of this historic wall being replaced, a brick wall with some flint inlay and railings have been built which in no way represents the original wall. This not only does not respect historic constructions but indicates that developers can get away with what is not possible for a householder and is inappropriate in the circumstances. Also, in this case it enables the developer to sell the remaining flint. Thus the developer will make several thousand pounds due to the reduced skilled labour involved in the construction of the new wall and railings and the flint sales. Also, the fact that the gardens are extremely limited and there is a large paved area, there is no immediate drainage and therefore rainwater will tend to collect and create the possibility of flooding.

With regard to The Cherry Tree development, again the developer has not adhered to the planning permission. For instance, the cellar, an integral requirement for a pub, has been filled in and cemented over and yet nothing has been done by the Council about this.

There have been strong comments about the proposed development off Little London Road and one wonders how much notice will be taken of both the Parish Council's recommendations and the comments from residents who know the area well as they live near the site. It would be interesting to know how many staff in the Planning Office of Mid Suffolk Council have been to the site and researched the area carefully over several days and at different seasons of the year. Also, it was extraordinary to see that some of the accompanying reports to the planning documents contradicted one another. On 12 October there was an accident outside the school between the school bus and a Land Rover and a child had to be taken to hospital. This demonstrates the traffic problems in this area which many residents have commented upon.


1. What do you think the vision should be?
The Council does not state what their vision is for Mid Suffolk, only mentioning that the Joint Local Plan needs 'to set a spatial vision'. A 'spatial vision' is very restrictive as there are major historical and ecological components which should be included in the vision. The identified objectives must be based upon the vision. Therefore, it is paramount for the Council to state their vision if the objectives and the rest of the document are to relate to it.

Mid Suffolk is a rural area with many of the towns and villages containing significant historical buildings and areas of natural habitat. It is important that these aspects of the county are maintained and cherished as an asset to the region and be seen as a backdrop to the Joint Local Plan. The vision for the area should be to enhance the current settlements, to regenerate some regions, eg Stowmarket town centre, within Mid Suffolk, and to create more housing in the style of the region, avoiding despoiling current towns, villages and hamlets and encourage innovative businesses with the necessary incentives to provide local employment and to enrich the countryside with its many areas of environmental biodiversity. At the same time, pioneering ideas should be developed to provide the necessary amenities and infrastructure within the region; this is being recognised as an important element for the wellbeing and health of the inhabitants.

It is noted that in Mid Suffolk, the main towns are designated as Eye, Needham Market and Stowmarket. However, elsewhere in the document, Appendix 1, under the Town Centre Maps, Debenham is classed as the main settlement in a 'Functional Cluster', with 19 settlements classified within this cluster. This is many more than other settlements, eg Framlingham which is a town. In no way can Debenham be classified as a town; it has few shops and increasingly inadequate amenities and infrastructure given the developments in recent years.

2. Do you agree with the identified objectives? Please explain reasoning.
I do agree with the objectives that have been identified. However, I do not feel that these objectives have been met until now so I hope they will be in the future. To fulfil these objectives, considerable research needs to be carried out to identify ways of fulfilling them within the culture of the towns, village and hamlets. Appropriate people need to be consulted - not large consultancy firms whose staff are often not skilled in the type of research which is required in these circumstances. With regard to the environment, far more care and action needs to be taken. In some areas of the country, Councils and developers are working with the Wild Life Trusts to provide a holistic way of building to avoid damage to protected sites and working with the natural surroundings to create gains for nature and better health and well-being for residents. (See www.wildlifetrusts.org/housing)

Recent research at the universities of Illinois and Glasgow has confirmed that natural scenery can be a useful tool to help reduce psychological stress and that spending time in natural environments have positive psychological benefits by stimulating relevant hormones. Particularly being around trees and grass lowers brain stress levels. This should be taken into account when planning developments. The way in which the 'Market Pyghtle' in Debenham has been developed does not allow for trees to be planted and there will be minimal space for grass to be laid down thus providing a sterile environment for the inhabitants and those living in the vicinity.

3. Are there other objectives which should be added?
Yes. Education; nursery, primary, secondary and tertiary. Currently, in Debenham there are parents who cannot obtain a place for their children in the senior classes of the primary school and have to travel elsewhere for their child's education.

Also, within the environment objective, the aspect of flooding needs to be addressed continually. This is especially the case as since the last big flood in the village in 1993, more houses have been allowed to be built in low lying areas of the village and there are 248 properties officially assessed as at risk of "fluvial floods". I know that the Debenham Holistic Flood Alleviation Project has been set up with collaboration between the Environment Agency, East Suffolk Drainage Board, Essex and Suffolk Rivers Trust and SCC. However, this is dependent upon more Deben Valley landowners becoming involved in the project (Debenham Parish Magazine, November 2017, page 5).

In Debenham due to the previous severe flooding and the pressure of new building sites, particularly in flood plain areas, eg at the lower end of Little London Road, flood risk needs to be researched further before further building takes place. I do not agree with the statement: '...and reduce future flood risk where possible.' Any development must ensure that flood risk is reduced. Professor David Balmforth of Imperial College and President of the Institute of Civil Engineers has spoken about sustainable drainage systems. Indicating that paved over areas prevent drainage and therefore water collects with the result of the greater possibility of flooding. This is likely to be the case in Caterham, Surrey, where flooding has taken place in the lower slopes of hills where new developments have been built higher up the hill. Professor Balmforth stresses the need for full investigations to be undertaken and old sewers and surface water drainage systems to be replaced.

Paul Cobbing, Chief Executive of the National Flood Forum, has also reiterated the importance of thorough research in the planning of developments to avoid flooding in areas that have been free from flooding for years due to measures that have been implemented in the past.

While water quality is mentioned, there is no indication concerning increased requirements for sewage, electricity, telephone and broadband connections. These are vitally important aspects of development which should be considered at the planning stage.

In conjunction with this, all brown field sites need to be investigated and used for development and long-term empty dwellings need to be utilised.

4. What should be the priority across the district area? Please state which district.
Debenham core village: As I live in Debenham, I can best contribute an opinion about this village. Due to past building projects and current building developments the population of the village has grown significantly resulting in the village being in dire need of improved amenities and better infrastructure. Maps of the village depict the enormous development on all sides of the historic, core village which demonstrates an imbalance of development.
* the schools are oversubscribed;
* the doctors surgery is in need of expansion due to the number of patients. Regularly, one has to wait several weeks for an appointment;
* traffic needs to be controlled within the village: huge lorries thunder through the village, often at speed; there are insufficient parking facilities near the Coop and, during term time, there is parking near the schools which daily causes significant problems on weekdays.

Also, the issue of potential flooding with further building projects needs to be addressed by carrying out thorough research. See comments under No.3.

5. What is most important for your town or village? (page 13)
For the core village of Debenham the most important aspect for the future is the development of an adequate infrastructure and facilities for the current population and those who come into the village from neighbouring villages and hamlets where there are no facilities at all. This needs to be addressed if further developments are to take place. The amenities and infrastructure for the area needs to be planned carefully to allow for a positive quality of life for the current residents and should new residents come to the village in the future.

There needs to be continual upkeep by the Council and Highways Agency in their various spheres of responsibility to maintain the village adequately.

5a. Do you agree or disagree with the identified key issues for compliance with the Duty to Co-operate for the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan? Please explain why. (page 16)
I agree with the strategic polices listed (1-5) on page 14. However, it is the responsibility of the Council to ensure that there is full compliance with the Duty to Co-operate.

6. Are there any other key planning issues which need to be considered in accordance with the Duty-to-Cooperate? Please explain why.
Different areas of Mid Suffolk need to be analysed so that aspects of the Duty to Co-operate that have not been fulfilled are dealt with fully before new projects are undertaken.

7. Do you agree with the proposed approach set out under Option HR1? If not, please explain why and what alternatives you propose.
I do not agree with the Option HR1. The allocation of sites should be carried out with due research. Reserve sites could create problems if the general infrastructure is not addressed prior to any further development. Where houses are currently being built in some towns and core villages considerable problems are arising due to lack of facilities and infrastructure thus ruining the places, eg Alderton, Gloucestershire, Framlingham, Suffolk/.

8. When allocating sites what scale of contingency should be applied? Please explain why?
This would be dependent upon the area in question. In some environments there will be greater capacity than others. For the core villages such as Debenham there are a very limited number of sites for development given the historic core village, the comparatively new developments and the current infrastructure.
To cope with the problem of contingency and having an adequate number of sites, perhaps a new garden city should be considered. This garden city could be built near the centres of work and be planned with innovation and flair. Not only could the building of a new town address the number of houses required to be built but would also preserve the current towns, villages and hamlets which are steadily being spoilt. The Ebbsfleet garden city in Kent is a current example and plans are depicted on the website www.kentonline.org.uk. Any such development would need to located near to rail and road links.
9. Are there any specific measures that could be included within the Joint Local Plan that would assist with delivery?
Yes, as mentioned in No.8, the building of a new garden city. Perhaps the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Councils could collaborate to explore such a suggestion.

10. What factors or priorities should be set as triggers for reserve sites to come forward?
Brownfield sites should be explored for reserve sites and possibly run-down industrial sites and disused airfields. In some cases, perhaps airfields with limited current use could be amalgamated and the land used for building a village or town from scratch. This would allow the amenities and infrastructure to be incorporated at the start of the development.


With regard to the building of more houses and generating employment opportunities it might be worth considering more inventive ideas. During the programme on Channel 4: Is Britain Full? Michael Buerk investigated the differing population percentages in the south, particularly London, and in the north, particularly Liverpool. London is becoming over-populated while Liverpool has whole streets with houses boarded up and a decreasing population. The northern towns need radical redevelopment with employment opportunities being created. In conjunction with this, good transport links between northern towns and southern towns, especially London, need to be created. Perhaps councils from the north and the south need to co-operate and explore ways of making positive conditions out of this discrepancy in the population distribution. Suitable 'twinning' between councils could be investigated which could benefit both areas of the country. Collaboration between councils and genuine research institutions as in universities rather than consultancy firms could well help to propose some inventive ideas to help solve the problems.

11. Do you agree with the proposed criteria approach to rank settlements in the hierarchy? If not, please explain a suggested amendment or alternative.
Generally yes.

12. Do you agree with the proposed joint settlement hierarchy? If no, please provide further details as to how the hierarchy should be amended.
I agree that Debenham should be classified as a core village. I am not in a position to comment of many of the other designated core villages.

13. Which option(s) for housing spatial distribution do you think is the best? Please explain your answer.
The percentages given in each area appear to be arbitrary. While one can classify the variously sized settlements, this is just a manmade classification. Urban areas, market towns, core villages, hinterland villages and hamlets all vary in their composition and this needs to be taken into account with careful consideration so as not to destroy the individuality of the settlements.

I think that a new settlement area would be the best option, ie a garden city development. This avoids over-development in core villages, hinterland villages and hamlets. One is seeing the destruction of the character of towns such as Framlingham (not mentioned in the lists on page 25) with the overdevelopment of building projects where houses are being built extremely close together with practically no gardens and a considerable area of road/pavement which does not allow for infiltration into the soil. Also, there appears to be no development of amenities and infrastructure. The current build indicates the need for recreation areas etc.

14. Are there other realistic broad distribution options which should be considered?
Yes. There needs to be greater flexibility as to where new developments are to be located, taking into account the region and established settlements. Settlements listed as Settlement Categories are not all similar so percentages for district growth should be explored for each settlement.

15. If a new settlement was to be planned in the area, where should it be located? Please explain your answer.
If a new settlement is to be planned there needs to be considerable research carried out to ensure that it is placed in a viable area, near to transport facilities and job opportunities. If there is a comparatively large brownfield site, this could be a starting point. Careful planning would need to take place to ensure that the town had good facilities and transport links covering the needs of the intended population with good transport links. If there was a brownfield site, eg disused airfield, run down industrial area, this could be utilised. A good example is the current large-scale development in the City of York. Ideas could be gleaned from the www.kentonline.org.uk website concerning the Ebbsfleet Garden City.

16. Should the Joint Local Plan include a requirement for new dwellings to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards?
These standards should be enforced. In the Space Standards for Homes RIBA Report a variety of problems are given, eg Local Authorities will struggle to set the new space standard as it is over complicated, costs too much and will take too long. They have suggested that the government should create a fair housing offer by embedding the Nationally Described Space Standard in building regulations. However, it is important that new dwellings have reasonably sized rooms rather than the occupants being cramped which is not compatible with stress-free living.

17. Do you have any views on the proposed approach towards self-build and custom build dwellings?
It is not clear what the proposed approach is towards self-build and custom built dwellings. Where permission is granted for these dwellings the plans need to be rigorously explored and then the development needs to be monitored carefully so that the plans are adhered to and that the buildings are of a design that is appropriate in the designated area.

18. What should the Councils' approach to Starter Homes be?
The Council should be promoting the building of Starter Homes for first-time buyers under the age of 40. It seems extraordinary that when the Parish Council proposed the building of starter homes on the now named site 'Market Pyghtle' in Debenham, the developer was given the go ahead to build 3 and 4 bedroom houses with practically no gardens. It is important that Starter Homes are built and an arbitrary percentage figure should not be used across the board. There should be a mechanism whereby first-time buyers from each settlement could put their names forward so that at least a realistic number of homes could be considered. There are some young people who would ideally like to have a home with a reasonable garden in a hamlet whereas others might prefer to be in a larger settlement with amenities and good public transport links.

19. Should the Councils be prioritising the provision of any particular types of homes?
Yes, both starter homes and homes for the elderly who are having to move to more appropriate housing should be prioritised. The latter should be custom-built.

20. Are there any other types of housing that should be planned for/required?
Yes, there should be homes similar to those built in Chelmsford city centre for the homeless as interim homes. Suitable sites could be chosen in towns and they would help to prevent vulnerable people having to sleep on the streets. This would enable organisations that help the homeless to be in a position to help and monitor the occupants. In a country such as ours, it is scandalous that we have people sleeping on the streets particularly when we have a section of society who are vulgarly rich, many of whom have several luxurious properties both in the UK and abroad.

21. How can the Councils promote/facilitate development of homes for private rent?
Contracts with the developers should stipulate that some homes for rent must be built. These should be a 'gift' to the Council. There should be strict rules to which developers have to adhere if they are given contracts to build houses. Currently, they appear to be getting away with far too much and the Council needs to have control which implies checking on the progress of developments and ordering the developers to rectify situations that go against the planning agreement.

22. In relation to affordable housing, do you consider the requirement should be set at a percentage other than the current 35%. If so, please provide reasons.
It depends upon how 35% is calculated. Presumably, there are different needs in different parts of the Mid Suffolk area. Each area requires research and, as far as possible, the percentage should depend upon need.

23. To what extent should affordable housing be (or not be) prioritised over provision of other infrastructure where viability is an issue?
In every case, all aspects of infrastructure where viability is an issue should be dealt with prior to building new houses. Currently, the situation is untenable where houses are being built with no development of infrastructure. However, affordable housing should take precedence over other housing.

24. In relation to affordable housing, should there be any preference for housing to accommodate key workers?
It is important that key workers are given some preference. However, if there is an influx of key workers into an area it could mean that some individuals/families are continually being moved down the waiting list. Therefore, a reasonable arrangement should be made dependent upon the circumstances. If key workers such as nurses are considered then affordable housing for them should be within a reasonable distance of good transport and/or near the place of work.

25. If Option RE2 is supported, what maximum percentage of market housing should be acceptable?
It is not clear what is meant by 'to bring the site forward'? However, so much is dependent upon the circumstances and, again a maximum percentage of market housing would not be appropriate. In general, rural areas should be maintained but, if this refers to rural towns and villages, then the individual settlement needs to be researched for appropriate building projects with a significant number of houses being built for first-time buyers who are being squeezed out of the market.

26. Which option for the policy approach to rural growth do you think is most appropriate?
RG1 as this should mean that each case in judged individually.

27. Are there any other approaches to distributing development in rural areas that we should consider?
Yes. Open meetings together with Parish Councils should be held in the settlement concerned to obtain the views of the inhabitants and the results of these meetings should be presented to the Councillors who come to the settlement in question. Even if Council members visit settlements on several occasions they will never be in a position to imbibe the current situation as seen by the inhabitants.

28. Do you support the approach proposed for hamlets? If not please explain.
As it is stated that 'National policy sets out that development should be distributed in a way which reduces the need to travel, supports the retention of existing services and helps to sustain rural areas' it would seem that neither HG1 or HG2 are sensible. However, if suitable sites are available to be purchased by individual families, building consent could be considered.

29. What should the Councils' approach to provision of negotiated stopping places be?
If 'stopping places' refers to families/groups with caravans etc, then the existing caravan sites should be adequate. Presumably, families/groups plan their journeys with these sites in mind.

30. Please submit details of any sites, or extensions to existing sites, which you consider are suitable for allocation as Gypsy and Traveller sites or travelling Showpeople sites.
I do not have the knowledge to answer this question.

31. Should the Joint Local Plan include a policy which identifies areas where moorings would be acceptable in principal?
Yes.
32. If so, are there any specific locations where additional moorings could be located?
I do not know enough about the appropriate areas to comment.

33. Should we continue to identify existing employment areas and protect land and premises in these areas from redevelopment/conversion to other uses unless marketing evidence demonstrates there is no demand for employment use?
Yes.

34. If we continue to protect existing employment areas, which areas should be identified?
I do not know enough about the existing employment areas throughout Mid Suffolk, except that in Debenham the current area, Meadow Works Business Park, should be protected.

35. Are there any existing employment areas that could be reallocated to other use?
I do not know of any.
.
36. Should we identify areas where non-B class uses, such as car showrooms, tyre and exhaust centres and building material stores, can
be located?
Yes. Careful placement of these kinds of employment areas is important as they can totally destroy the historical and aesthetic aspects of a settlement. They are not the kind of employment areas suitable to be located in villages and hamlets.

37. Should there be a policy that allows a wider range of uses than just B class on all employment sites or selected employment sites?
Careful consideration should be given in every case. Local skills and appropriate sites should be taken into account without exception together with the views of the population adjacent to the site.

38. Should we allocate more than enough land to meet the forecast needs to enable more choice in the market and give flexibility to changing circumstances?
Only where there is significant development and local manpower. Land should not be allocated in inappropriate places such as near/in villages and hamlets which do not have this kind of facility already. It is inappropriate to continually add buildings to a settlement without restrictions. The choice of sites should be made by the Council and not be developers.

39. Should we make specific employment provisions for small and medium sized enterprises? If so, how and where.
Yes, especially high-tech. However, this employment provision should be carefully researched and the businesses placed in appropriate places, eg near centres of research and other high-tech businesses so that meaningful collaboration can take place.

40. If we expand, or allocate additional employment land where should these be?
Near existing centres of research, engineering etc. This would allow interaction between research and development. Examples of this type of development are taking place in Cambridge and Norwich.

41. What approach should we take to supporting new business formation across the Districts?
Realistic consideration of applications for new business formation should take place, with possible financial incentives being given, eg lower rent. It is important that the population have adequate local employment that is relevant to the area in which they live and is not duplicated.

42. Do you consider that any of the sites put forward as part of the Call for Sites should be allocated for retail or commercial leisure use? Please state why.
It is extraordinary that Debenham, which is designated as a core village, is grouped with Eye, which is designated as: urban areas and Market Town. While Debenham can be seen as a Core Village/Functional Cluster, and seen to have a District Centre role, in no way can it be classed with the other centres mentioned in this section. Its dependent villages and hamlets have been listed as 19 in number, whereas towns such as Framlingham have 3 in its cluster. The retail provision in Debenham is limited when compared with somewhere like Framlingham and Eye and there is nowhere in the heart of the village that further retail development can take place. It would seem sensible to increase the retail opportunities in places like Stowmarket where the town centre is rundown, inadequate and depressing. Retailers with smaller floorspace should be encouraged, perhaps financially, together with what is being classed as commercial leisure facilities. Out of town retail should be discouraged as this tends to deplete the viability of the town centres and encourages the use of private transport. In all cases there needs to be an increase in public transport.

43. Are there any other sites that should be considered for retail or commercial leisure use?
I do not know the full area of Mid Suffolk to suggest sites. If the town centres such as Stowmarket were reinvigorated this would make a difference to the situation. However, building developments such as the current ones in Framlingham do not solve these problems but destroy the ethos of the town and put to great a strain on the infrastructure. Brownfield sites should be utilised and the possibility of a new garden city should be considered as this could be custom built with amenities and infrastructure developed to suit the number of dwellings and house a significant number of people. It would also cut down the imposition of developments in towns and villages that have reached capacity.

44. If you consider allocations for retail development should come forward as mixed use, please provide details.
I do. As mentioned in Para 3 in the section headed 'Retail capacity and allocations'.

45. Do you agree with the proposed Town Centre boundaries, Primary Shopping Areas, Primary Shopping Frontages and Secondary Shopping Frontages? If not, please explain why.
Debenham listed in the Settlement Hierarchy it is classed as a core village. Therefore, it is not clear why it is included here. On the map there is a darker pink area depicted but no indication as to what this is. For Eye, Hadleigh, Needham Market and Sudbury I do not have the necessary information to answer the question.

Map 4: Debenham has the largest number of cluster villages. As Debenham itself is a core village this cannot be right or sensible. Given that the retail outlets of Eye, Framlingham and Stowmarket are greater in number, the boundary of Eye should extend further south, the boundary of Framlingham further west and the boundary of Stowmarket further east.

46. Do you agree with the approach to not define Primary Shopping Area boundaries within settlements other than the three main towns? If not, please explain why.
Yes.

47. Do you agree with the approach to maintain and increase retail provision within the District Centres? If not, please explain why.
Retail provision should be maintained. However, in Debenham there is no area in the centre that could offer increased retail provision. The current developments have already far outstripped the possible retail provision in the heart of the village and the capacity of other amenities.

48. Do you agree with the proposed thresholds relating to the mix of uses within Primary Shopping Frontage? If not, please explain why.
Thresholds have been given but there is no reasoning behind the suggested percentages. Explanation is required for an answer to this question.

49. Do you agree with the proposal to require an impact assessment for all edge of centre and out of centre retail proposals that are 400sqm gross floorspace or more? If not, please explain why.
Yes. It is apparent that where there are retail developments outside the town centres it has taken the heart out of the town. Very careful research and subsequent consideration needs to take place so as not to destroy vibrant and thriving communities.

50. The Councils propose to protect A1-A5 uses in Core Villages and Hinterland Villages, and in local centres within towns. Do you consider this to be the correct approach?
Yes.

51. Do you have views on the Option BIO1 and/or BIO2?
I prefer Option BIO2 as it includes the 'enhancement' of the areas. In no way should these areas be encroached upon and if development takes place nearby then this should not impinge on the habitat and biodiversity of the designated area.

52. How should the local plan consider the impact of renewable technologies? What types of effects should be assessed within the policy criteria?
Research institutions including universities involved in work on renewable energy and sustainable construction should be consulted so that the most appropriate schemes are introduced. These experts would be able to give full details of the types of effects that would occur. Also, the population in the vicinity of the proposed introduction of the new technologies should be consulted. It is important not to involve organisations with a financial interest at the stage of research as they often do not have the expertise required and have to buy in assistance. Sub-contracting always involves increased financial costs.

53. Do you support the Council's initial preference to include water efficiency measures in new build? If no, please explain why?
Yes.
54. Are there any other additional environmental standards Babergh and Mid Suffolk should be requiring? If so, please provide details and reasons why.
While water efficiency is mentioned, there is no indication concerning sewage disposal capacity and surface water drainage. Air pollution needs to be addressed in hinterland villages as huge vehicles are tending to use the country roads which are totally unsuitable. They need to be prohibited. If deliveries need to be made rather smaller vehicles should to be used.

55. Are there any other approaches that the Joint Local Plan could take to protect the landscape?
Yes. Have stricter regulations for the developers and ensure that inspections take place at regular intervals during the development of a given site. If the developers are not complying with regulations and the permissions given, they should be made to comply. A holistic way of building should be adopted to avoid damaging protected and historical sites. Working with the surroundings to create gains for better health and well-being for resident and improvements for wildlife should be adopted. See www.wildlifetrusts.org/housing. The developers should be required to rectify all surrounding areas before they leave the area.

With regard to landscape surrounding settlements, conservation is important so that the biodiversity is maintained and depletion of species is curtailed..

56. Should additional protection be given to areas which form part of a landscape project area but which aren't designated?
Yes. This is most important in order to maintain the character of the landscape and historic towns and villages. Environmental habitats need to be protected so that the biodiversity of the region does not become depleted.

The diverse landscape of the area needs to be maintained and cherished. The non-designated areas which have a rich environment need to be protected. Possibly a reappraisal of non-designated areas needs to be carried out.

57. How can the Joint Local Plan make the most of the heritage assets?
The Joint Local Plan can do nothing by just being printed unless those responsible for it and in positions of authority within the Council are strict about ensuring that the Plan is adhered to with firm control. Heritage assets need to be preserved and protected. Those responsible should be encouraged to go for Lottery funding and other grants in order to restore buildings where necessary. If developers are making significant amounts of money in nearby areas, they should contribute financially or in kind to the upkeep of the heritage sites within the area. Many heritage sites bring income from tourism. Collaboration with the variety of trusts such as Suffolk Wildlife Trust, the RSPB etc could provide valuable information.

58. What level of protection should be given to identified non-designated assets? Are there any specific situations in which the balance should favour or not favour protection of identified non-designated assets?
A high level of protection should be given to maintain the uniqueness of Suffolk. HA1 is acceptable but it needs the vigilance of the appropriate departments of Mid Suffolk and research to be carried out on these assets. Collaboration with scientific organisations could help with this situation.

59. Should a more flexible approach toward climate change objectives be adopted where this would assist in protecting a heritage asset?
Yes.

60. Is there any aspect of design that priority should be given to?
Developments should be in keeping with the character of the town/village/hamlet. The Council should apply stringent rules on developers and insist that they should adhere to these regulations. The information in the six bullet points given on page 64 should all be insisted upon. However, in totally new areas or in a new settlement, innovative designs could be developed.

61. Is there any aspect of design that should be introduced to the Councils' policies?
Some new sustainable and economical designs could be explored for introduction to the Councils' policies. However, these new designs should be implemented in carefully chosen sites. As mentioned previously the www.wildlifetrusts.org/housing website gives some ideas and contact and collaboration with the organisation might be advantageous.

62. Is there an area of design related to past development that you consider needs to be addressed in future development?
Yes. The size and design of the buildings are important in historic areas of settlements. The new houses being built on the 'Market Pyghtle' site are too large for the site and they have miniscule gardens which are inappropriate for a village. This arrangement is more for a town situation. Other houses built in the older parts of the village in recent years have been out of keeping with the general design. Thus the ambience of the village is steadily being destroyed by inappropriately designed new housing.

Areas of design related to past development such as the quintessential Suffolk houses should be incorporated in a sensitive and sensible manner.

63. Which option do you consider most appropriate? Please explain why.
INF1. Debenham has had significant development over the years, eg The Meadows, Henniker Road developments, but no attention has been given to amenities and infrastructure. This has resulted in an almost untenable situation with regard to medical facilities, educational provision, transport and parking facilities. Currently, far too much heavy traffic is being allowed to pass through the village and many vehicles at speeds far in excess of the limit.

64. What do you consider the key infrastructure issues in your community?
The key infrastructure issues in Debenham are the need for:
* adequate medical facilities - larger surgery and more staff for the population and nearby villages and hamlets without this facility
* adequate school places in both the Primary older children's classes and the High School
* adequate parking facilities
* adequate maintenance of the streams throughout the village
* adequate research and development with regard to possible flooding
* adequate maintenance of the highways and byroads
* control of huge vehicles passing through the village. They need to be diverted via the main roads and above a certain size should not be allowed on the minor roads. Should the contents of these vehicles need to be delivered, then smaller vehicles need to be employed
* control of the speed limit through the village. Given the straight nature of the High Street and Aspall Road, they often become a race track

65. What infrastructure issues do you consider to be a priority for the future?
This question has mainly been answered in No.64 above. Most of the key infrastructures issues have been caused by over-development over recent decades when it appears that no or little thought has been given to amenities and infrastructure.
* Health centre/GP surgery which is currently inadequate.
* Education. Local people can no longer find places for their children in the senior classes of the Primary School in Debenham. Debenham children should have priority.
* Transport. Currently, the traffic through the village is dreadful. Vehicles are breaking the speed limit and heavy goods vehicles are coming through the village when they should be diverted. Once outside the village, they cannot remain within the central road markings and therefore break up the verges. Diversions should be in place.
* Parking. Totally inadequate.
* Public transport. Inadequate with regard to frequency and destinations.
* Flood risk management. This needs to be addressed particularly with the new developments. Currently, the Highways Agency carries out an inadequate job with regard to clearing the streams around Debenham.

66. What infrastructure do you think would be needed to support the growth scenarios?
As for Nos.64 and 65. Before any further growth to Debenham village is contemplated these issues should be addressed.

67. What comments do you have on the proposed strategic approach to infrastructure delivery?
Currently, the amenities and infrastructure are inadequate given the recent developments within Debenham core village. Therefore, this needs to be addressed prior to any further housing development.

68. Should a separate policy be developed to manage provision of education and healthcare?
Yes.

69. Should the strategy of the Plan be focussed on addressing deprivation?
The Plan should address deprivation but should not be totally focussed upon it as there are many other issues that need to be addressed.

70. Are there any specific approaches that should be applied to address deprivation?
The Council should work with local organisations that are addressing the needs of the deprived and develop meaningful ways of coping with this problem. They should find out how this problem is being addressed in other areas of the country and see if lessons can be learned so that meaningful policies can be introduced.

71. Are there any other circumstances and/or provisions under which open space, sports facilities or community facilities should be required and/or protected?
In Debenham the Leisure Centre together with the outdoor sports facilities and playground areas should be protected and the local green spaces such as Hoggs Kiss Wood, Hoppit Wood and the lakes and the woodland area next to Coopersfield and the cemetery and opposite the playground area should be protected.

72. Through the Plan should any other areas of Local Green Space be identified and protected?
Where none are provided, then they should be found and protected so that all populations have access to these facilities. Those members of the population who can least afford them are possibly those who require them most.

73. Are there any specific facilities that should be included in the definition of community facilities?
These have already been mentioned.

74. Do you consider the approach to identifying functional clusters appropriate for Babergh and Mid Suffolk? If not, please explain what would be your preferred approach?
Identifying functional clusters could be appropriate. However, not in the way they have been identified. In the explanation under para. 4 there is no mention of Debenham and then under 'Settlement Boundaries' it is given the status of a 'core village' with the largest functional cluster. This does not seem reasonable or sensible given the amenities and facilities when compared with Stowmarket for instance. This needs to be looked at again.
Debenham is classified as a 'core village'. However, on the Map: 'Functional Clusters in Mid Suffolk', Debenham is depicted as the largest functional cluster. This cannot be justified given the facts and is totally unacceptable. For instance, Framlingham has 3 villages within its cluster, Stowmarket has 16, Diss 4 and Eye 13, all with far more amenities than Debenham which is given 18 neighbouring villages and hamlets which must be incorrect. (Debenham is also listed as a village within the cluster which presumably is a mistake.)
The boundaries should be redrawn to illustrate a more meaningful depiction.
* Eye to the south
* Stowmarket to the east
* Framlingham to the west

75. Do you consider the proposed new settlement boundaries to be appropriate? Please explain your answer.
With regard to Debenham: the depiction on the map of the proposed new settlement boundary is not clear and cannot be clearly distinguished from the existing settlement boundary. So I cannot comment.

With regard to other towns, villages and hamlets I am not in a position to comment as I do not know the settlements sufficiently well.

76. Are there any other settlements that should be given new settlement boundaries? Please explain your answer.
I am not in a position to comment.

77. Is the threshold (10 well related dwellings) for identifying settlement boundaries appropriate?
This seems reasonable.

78. Do you consider the sites identified to be appropriate for allocation or inclusion within the settlement boundary? Please explain why and quote the settlement and site reference number ieSS0001).
I can only comment on Debenham. I do not consider the sites identified to be appropriate. No indication is given as to the number of dwellings to be built nor is there any suggestion of the Council's intention for the development of associated amenities and infrastructure.

SS0902: Totally unsuitable as this area is within the flood plain and flooding has taken place in this area of Low Road in the past as a result of other developments in the area, eg The Meadows. With flooding being on the increase due to climate change it would seem most inappropriate to continue building in areas such as this.

SS0642: Totally unsuitable. Again building in this area would contribute to flooding around Low Road. With the huge development of houses between Gracechurch Street and Low Road, the map demonstrates the imbalance of development with respect to the core village. It does not seem that there is an appropriate nearby area to create a 'slow and flow' feature.

SS0267: Far too large an area of development. Again this will put a strain on all the systems related to house building and possibly lead to increased potential for flooding in the area of The Butts and further downstream.

The maps are generally not that easy to follow as none of the roads are named. However, looking at the map of Debenham it can be seen that the developments are massively larger than the original core village and although roads have been built within the developments, no amenities or infrastructure has been built to accommodate the large number of houses that have been built. Thus, it makes these proposals untenable for the village life of the inhabitants.

79. Are there any other sites/areas which would be appropriate for allocation? If yes, please provide further information and complete a site submission form.
Brownfield sites need to be explored, eg run down industrial sites, disused airfields etc. A more inventive approach needs to be sought to avoid spoiling the culture and uniqueness of town and villages within Mid Suffolk.

(Further letter sent 7 November 2017 in attachments)

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9794

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Colin Johnston

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?

Full text:

9th November 2017



Draft Joint Local Plan Response


I have already made some responses on the on-line consultation. This set of comments is an attempt to say what I think is important rather than be 'tramlined' down a set of prepared questions.

In the past people, in the main, people lived in a settlement and worked there or near by; sustainable modes of transport (before the internal combustion engine) were used. In the present day planners and politicians invoke the sustainability of such arrangements and extol the virtues of people living in urban centres, where most jobs are, along with appropriate services and infrastructure. This should be the starting point for Babergh's strategy on housing.

Babergh's planning documents talk about the importance of:- addressing climate change, having access to services, using sustainable forms of transport. It is quite clear that if you want to achieve these things then people have to live in or close to jobs and service centres. It therefore makes sense for most of any new housing development to be located in and around the towns and largest villages.

There seems to be an urban bias in much of what goes on in planning i.e what is good for urban areas can be applied to the rural areas. I disagree with this. The main points I want to make are as follows:-

1. Most new housing should be in the towns and large villages (up to 80%). All new development should be accompanied by adequate resources to enhance services, facilities and infrastructure. The people affected are likely to be less hostile if they get something back. People are also warmer to the establishment of an entirely new settlement (as long as it's not near them) because infrastructure and services will be planned in and , as it is new, everything should be fit for purpose.
2. Small villages and hamlets should be seen as entities which are happy in their own skin. They do not need to be turned into commuter or dormitory villages. Their size goes with their character and their lack of facilities is their appeal. They are there to live alongside the countryside not to challenge or dominate it. Having no paved footpaths or street lighting is part of why we live here! More houses will create a demand for these comforting signs of 'civilisation' and destroy what we have. Planners and politicians do not appreciate the delicate ecosystem which our smallest settlements present and which residents value. Shouldn't the views of existing residents have some weighting here? please
3. In the village in which I live, Shimpling, I take issue with the desktop exercise which redrew the village boundary. This failed to recognise that the meadow (casually now included inside the BUAB) was the subject of some discussion last year when planning was allowed next to it. There is now a TPO on a splendid oak tree in this meadow which is a precious green asset. Would you now put the BUAB line back where it was please?
4. I support the downgrading of Shimpling from hinterland village to hamlets and countryside. This, at least, is a better recognition of the fact that it is, a non-sustainable village. This surely should offer it some protections against the development applications which are currently in danger of swamping us? If we go back to 'sustainability' being the key criterion for all things planning related, then the non sustainable villages should be exempt from development.
Economic need should be the only exceptional criterion on deciding on development in unsustainable settlements like Shimpling. If there is a need for a person to live in the village as part of his/her job, then that should be a consideration in the planning process.
5. The Authority should offer support to non sustainable villages like Shimpling so that they can counter the large number of planning applications which simply swamp our resources. Producing a neighbourhood plan is not the way to go for these small settlements but we need some mechanism to enable us to be more proactive. We feel abandoned by the local authority.
6. By suggesting that neighbourhood plans are the only partial defence against inappropriate development, the Authority is neglecting those villages like Shimpling which need another route. As part of its new plan Babergh must recognise the different needs and identity of the small rural settlements.
7. Current planning rules give even more power to speculators, developers and landowners. Villages like Shimpling simply do not have the resources to compete when it comes to challenging inappropriate development. The local authority seems to have no interest in our plight where the few can dictate to the many. If there is any local democracy out there we don't see it in action. Villages like this surrounded by farmland are 'easy pickings' for those who want to 'release land' for building purposes.
8. 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?


H Colin Johnston

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9798

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Simon Wood

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.

Full text:

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?

Sproughton.
There are currently 14 Planning applications in for consideration within the village boundary.
The village could increase from 560 existing houses to potentially 2500+
The road infrastructure cannot cope with current vehicle movements.
Poor air quality exists at the Wild Man junction.
GP surgeries are oversubscribed.
Local A&E is oversubscribed.
Emergency services are already experiencing cutbacks.
The village school is oversubscribed.
The local recycling facility was closed some years ago which has seen a dramatic increase in flytipping.
Village identity would be lost. Sproughton would become a suburb.
Broadband infrastructure is at capacity.
Local flood plains exist but are being ignored.
Catchment high school is over subscribed.
Impact on natural environment is being overlooked.
A percentage housing increase should be agreed for every settlement. Doubling, trebling, quadrupling or worse should not be acceptable.

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

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 9838

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Stowupland Parish Council

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.

Full text:

See attachment