Key Economic Issues

Showing comments 1 to 20 of 20

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 17

Received: 10/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Morley

Representation:

With the imminent dramatic changes in UK's relationships with the EU and the rest of the food producing and consuming world, it is vital that we maximise our food production capacity. Mid Suffolk's land is some of the most productive in the UK.

Full text:

With the imminent dramatic changes in UK's relationships with the EU and the rest of the food producing and consuming world, it is vital that we maximise our food production capacity. Mid Suffolk's land is some of the most productive in the UK.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 24

Received: 31/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Ben Gilligan

Representation:

What is the rationale of Tourism being at the top of the list and Hospitality / Leisure being at the bottom?

The two are inextricably linked.

Full text:

What is the rationale of Tourism being at the top of the list and Hospitality / Leisure being at the bottom?

The two are inextricably linked.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 707

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Martyn Levett

Representation:

1. Your projection of 14% increase in jobs locally is based on pure assumption. In 2001 Babergh had the largest proportion of 43% of its employed population working outside the district.
2.Projected employment growth will be driven from Professional and Business Services, is not reflective of the local trends.
3. 70 jobs were lost in Ipswich following the appointment of administrators at insurance broker Ignition Select. 130 jobs lost in Ipswich at Call Connect. 174 jobs at the CO-OP Boss Hall distribution depot. Further uncertainties with Brexit will undermine your projections.

Full text:

1. I cannot find one robust study published (as you have represented) on this speculative projection of 14% increase in jobs locally. It is based on pure assumption of hope rather than realistic expectation. Furthermore, in 2001 Babergh had the largest proportion of out-commuting out of all Suffolk's districts with 43% of its employed population working outside of the district.
2. If your belief is that employment growth will be driven from Professional and Business Services, how and where do you expect that scale of professional to come from? Recent evidence shows that employment in Babergh is dominated by four main sectors: (i) public services; (ii) banking, finance and insurance; (iii) distribution, retail, hotels and restaurants, and (iv) manufacturing.
3. 70 jobs were lost in Ipswich following the appointment of administrators at insurance broker Ignition Select. 130 jobs lost in Ipswich at Call Connect. 174 jobs at the CO-OP Boss Hall distribution depot. Further uncertainties with Brexit will undermine your projections.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 733

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Representation:

ECONOMIC BASE: We welcome development of tourism, but the Plan fails to state any 'bottom lines' for the positives and negatives of tourism.

Full text:

Economic Base - Tourism: We welcome development of tourism, but the Plan fails to state any 'bottom lines' for the positives and negatives of tourism. Positives: we proposed an area for tourists and residents, plus wildlife etc, in the form of a mini-country park should be set aside close to Sudbury and towards Lavenham, but neither the Babergh portfolio holder nor Sudbury Town Council wished to consider this. Negatives: tourism must never be put forward as an excuse to destroy Sudbury's remaining open land, as on the perimeters of Chilton Woods, eg for car-parking or burger joints; Sudbury at present has imminent hotel plans for 3 sites, and much as hotel provision is necessary, the 3 sites are inappropriate: Belle Vue (verbal announcement of Babergh portfolio holder) which has recently been withdrawn once under massive public pressure, the Tax Office site, and at Chilton Woods west of Tesco (masterplan map); the latter would remove the most direct and shortest access from the town to countryside, via the Tesco subway, and would block important views and disrupt the wildlife link.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 981

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Representation:

Great Ashfield PC - broadband is a huge factor in economic growth, particularly in Mid Suffolk rural areas. This should be included explicitly to help offset "Mid Suffolk currently hold the lowest rates (of business formation) in Suffolk.

Full text:

Great Ashfield PC - broadband is a huge factor in economic growth, particularly in Mid Suffolk rural areas. This should be included explicitly to help offset "Mid Suffolk currently hold the lowest rates (of business formation) in Suffolk.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 2004

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Drinkstone Parish Council

Representation:

Where is the strategy for generating quality employment opportunities? Mid Suffolk acknowledges its poor record of new business creation. One can only hope that under the duty to cooperate, partner organisations will come forward with the strategic vision that this document lacks. Given the technological changes that are predicted over the next 20 years, to focus solely on identifying land for relatively low grade business activity is a missed opportunity to create employment of a quality which might enable people to afford the houses being built. MSDC should learn from Cambridge as an example of good practice in economic transformation.

Full text:

Where is the strategy for generating quality employment opportunities? Mid Suffolk acknowledges its poor record of new business creation. One can only hope that under the duty to cooperate, partner organisations will come forward with the strategic vision that this document lacks. Given the technological changes that are predicted over the next 20 years, to focus solely on identifying land for relatively low grade business activity is a missed opportunity to create employment of a quality which might enable people to afford the houses being built. MSDC should learn from Cambridge as an example of good practice in economic transformation.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 2009

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Drinkstone Parish Council

Representation:

Where is the strategy for generating quality employment opportunities? Mid Suffolk acknowledges its poor record of new business creation. One hopes that under the duty to cooperate, partner organisations will come forward with the strategic vision that this document lacks. Given the technological changes predicted over the next 20 years, to focus solely on identifying land for relatively low grade business activity is a missed opportunity to create employment of a quality and salary level which might enable people to afford the houses being built. MSDC should learn from Cambridge as an example of good practice in economic transformation.

Full text:

Where is the strategy for generating quality employment opportunities? Mid Suffolk acknowledges its poor record of new business creation. One hopes that under the duty to cooperate, partner organisations will come forward with the strategic vision that this document lacks. Given the technological changes predicted over the next 20 years, to focus solely on identifying land for relatively low grade business activity is a missed opportunity to create employment of a quality and salary level which might enable people to afford the houses being built. MSDC should learn from Cambridge as an example of good practice in economic transformation.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 2819

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Coxhead

Representation:

There needs to be a strategic plan to encourage new businesses in Mid Suffolk

Full text:

There needs to be a strategic plan to encourage new businesses in Mid Suffolk

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 3103

Received: 05/11/2017

Respondent: Iain Pocock

Representation:

Reference is made to population growth, however has the impact of Brexit been considered?

Full text:

Reference is made to population growth, however has the impact of Brexit been considered?

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 3104

Received: 05/11/2017

Respondent: Iain Pocock

Representation:

Need consider impact of Brexit on growth and employment trends

Full text:

Need consider impact of Brexit on growth and employment trends

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 4387

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Representation:

We are not convinced that the actual demand from house purchasers and employers is strong enough to make the envisioned development achievable. Since we want Babergh to achieve jobs and a 5-year housing supply (thereby fending off uncontrolled development) we urge Suffolk's authorities to use their reserves and their efforts to bridge the gaps in commercial viability of development, including a 'council housing' type approach. The Financial Viability Assessment for Chilton Woods causes anxiety that the scheme as presented to the public will not be feasible otherwise.

Full text:

Projected Growth: The Deloitte Financial Viability Assessment for Chilton Woods August 2017 causes us anxiety that the scheme as presented to the public will not be feasible, in respect of social housing, affordable housing, housing density, infrastructure or employment (including for instance the desirable moving of the Sandy Lane waste site here from Sandy Lane), given such statements in the Report, as:
"4.22 The cashflow separates the masterplan into 3 sequential phases, although the scheme has also been appraised assuming one single phase. The phases have been based on the rate of private sales that can be achieved at Chilton Woods. The assumed phasing (as set out in table 4.1 below) has been created to ensure there is sufficient development within Phase 1 as that is when most of the infrastructure costs are incurred. Accordingly the size of the phase are indicative and reflect the infrastructure burden and a desire to ensure values/income exceeds costs.
4.23 The phasing of the residential is weighted more heavily towards the front end in Phase 1, where the early development will be of a higher density (44.25 dph). Then density then reduces in the later phases (34.78 dph and 28.74 dph for Phases 2 and 3 respectively) because a larger proportion of the required infrastructure for the site will be required in Phase 1 and densities will reduce towards the outer edges of the development, adjacent to the open countryside.
4.24 The phasing of the employment provision has been considered separately to the residential as it will come forward according to demand, which far less predictable and depends on occupier demand.
4.25 For the purpose of the planning application viability assessment, it is assumed that employment land is brought forward in each phase, based on an assumed absorption/take-up rate of the take up of employment land of 0.81 ha (2 acres) per annum. However, this will be dependent on the demand for employment at the time and is not linked to the delivery of the residential dwellings.
5.2 Our analysis shows that the proposed scheme cannot support the policy target level of 35% affordable housing. This is for a number of reasons:1. The high infrastructure costs required in the early phases negatively impacts on scheme viability;
2. The relatively weak market demand and low house prices makes the residential element alone unviable based on the affordable housing policy targets. It is potentially viable with less than 35% affordable but there is no possibility of cross subsidy to the employment element; and,
3. The proportion of non-developable land within the master plan and local plan allocation is high at Chilton Woods.
5.3 We have tested a scenario whereby the residential element is allowed to come forward for development but areas of non-developable land not required for the housing, are excluded, thereby reducing the land costs. The non-developable land would remain as existing (undeveloped) but would still form part of the masterplan.
5.4 The employment land would benefit from outline planning consent and the western access road would have detailed planning consent and therefore available to be taken up, when the viability improves either by improved market demand conditions or gap funding.
"6.2 Major infrastructure items are required to facilitate the scale of development proposed, including the provision of a new school, a new village centre and improved transport junctions. DRE has considered the impact of such infrastructure requirements on the value of the scheme, the master developer cashflow and the resulting impact on its viability and affordable housing provision.
6.3 Our work concludes that the proposed development, in accordance with the Masterplan, cannot deliver a policy compliant level of 35% affordable housing. There are three key reasons for this:
 The prevailing sales values of new dwellings are not high enough to support the high infrastructure and s106 costs required in the first phase of the scheme.
 The employment land values (due to weak demand) do not contribute positively to the viability of the scheme and cost of delivering the employment land, which creates a drag on viability.
 The Masterplan and Local Plan allocation has a high proportion of non-developable land, which further increases scheme costs and reduces viability.
6.4 Viability can however be improved through appropriate scheme phasing. This can be done whilst ensuring flexibility (with the certainty of a planning permission) exists for the employment land to come forward when it is financially viable, either by improved market conditions or gap/grant funding."
OUR COMMENT: Councillor Busby stated at the Planning Committee on 25/10/17, that the Chilton Woods benefits are being endangered by the County Council's high price for its land, and unwillingness to use reserves; and it may be this that is undermining the financial viability, which we would be unhappy about. However, if this is the case, we must PROTEST at the scheme starting with the extremely intrusive and unsightly western access junction, which could prove to be a white elephant.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 5862

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Stowmarket Society

Representation:

We believe that the future of the Stowmarket town centre (and Sudbury for that matter) deserves greater acknowledgement as a key issue. With internet shopping and other social changes, town centre retailing is under threat and is changing. It can be seen that many of the shops that do exist are operating on low margins, and property maintenance is poor. The town needs a strategy to deal with these issues, not just controlling changes of use. Town centres need to maintain their role at the heart of communities if they are to be prosperous and attractive.

Full text:

We believe that the future of the Stowmarket town centre (and Sudbury for that matter) deserves greater acknowledgement as a key issue. With internet shopping and other social changes, town centre retailing is under threat and is changing. It can be seen that many of the shops that do exist are operating on low margins, and property maintenance is poor. The town needs a strategy to deal with these issues, not just controlling changes of use. Town centres need to maintain their role at the heart of communities if they are to be prosperous and attractive.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 6227

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: MSDC Green Group

Representation:

Please see revised text in our submission

Full text:

Please see revised text in our submission

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 6635

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Powell

Representation:

The argument for growth appears to be based on wishful thinking as I see no constructive policies to create growth. This is a competitive market and Suffolk needs more than wishful thinking to encourage new businesses away from the opportunities presented by HS2 and everything that is developing around that.
Building houses in the hope business will come is a very dangerous course as if they don't the district unemployment levels will go up.

Full text:

The argument for growth appears to be based on wishful thinking as I see no constructive policies to create growth. This is a competitive market and Suffolk needs more than wishful thinking to encourage new businesses away from the opportunities presented by HS2 and everything that is developing around that.
Building houses in the hope business will come is a very dangerous course as if they don't the district unemployment levels will go up.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 7802

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Knibbs

Representation:

Population growth is related to employment opportunities, and affordability of housing.
Housing Need seems incomplete - what is the national average for house prices compared with Suffolk, and what proportion is considered to be affordable?
Income deprivation statement lacks sense. The percentages given don't relate directly to each other.
Low crime levels - this statement includes comment on levels of unemployment without giving the relationship.

Full text:

Population growth is related to employment opportunities, and affordability of housing.
Housing Need seems incomplete - what is the national average for house prices compared with Suffolk, and what proportion is considered to be affordable?
Income deprivation statement lacks sense. The percentages given don't relate directly to each other.
Low crime levels - this statement includes comment on levels of unemployment without giving the relationship.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 8463

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Beiley

Representation:

No account seems to have been taken of the economic / employment impacts of the presence of military bases and the longer term plans of both the MoD and USAF.

Full text:

No account seems to have been taken of the economic / employment impacts of the presence of military bases and the longer term plans of both the MoD and USAF.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 8558

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: David Black & Sons Ltd.

Representation:

Mid-Suffolk is a largely rural district and the officially assessed business formation rates may fail to take full account of the home working/small business units. These should be seen as a positive economic base, and given encouragement as they reduce transport pressures and increase local job opportuities.

Full text:

Mid-Suffolk is a largely rural district and the officially assessed business formation rates may fail to take full account of the home working/small business units. These should be seen as a positive economic base, and given encouragement as they reduce transport pressures and increase local job opportuities.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 8925

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Shephard

Representation:

Not necessary to develop more industrial units off A134 in Long Melford as many industrial sites not currently being utilised nearby and new ones already planned for Chilton Woods. Would be noisy with transport and machinery and have detrimental affect of resident wildlife. Would ruin one of county's most picturesque villages which encourages many visitors and artists to area. We were reassured by professionals in the village that this landowner would never consider selling land for development because he had a good relationship with residents and villagers and his family had been living here for generations.

Full text:

Not necessary to develop more industrial units off A134 in Long Melford as many industrial sites not currently being utilised nearby and new ones already planned for Chilton Woods. Would be noisy with transport and machinery and have detrimental affect of resident wildlife. Would ruin one of county's most picturesque villages which encourages many visitors and artists to area. We were reassured by professionals in the village that this landowner would never consider selling land for development because he had a good relationship with residents and villagers and his family had been living here for generations.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 11191

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Representation:

No reference is made to the impact that technology will have on the way we work, live, consume and travel. There are many game changing technology enablers that have significant potential to impact growth projections and consumer and investment choices. By 2036 no one will be buying petrol or diesel cars, robots will most likely have become common place in the workplace, and artificial intelligence(AI) will become part of everyone's life experience. Changes such as these are not trivial changes and need to be considered in the plan to ensure it plans for the future.

Full text:


Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find my comments on the consultation joint local plan document, set out below. I'm sorry that I was unable to download and use the electronic feedback forms from your website, as the link was not working. The tick box interactive site did not suit the nature of some of my comments and so I have therefore used letter format, which in the circumstances was the only option open to me.

1. Overarching Comment. The plan has the stated intention "to deliver growth", but the basis of the policy choices/options that the reader is offered and their effectiveness to deliver will, in reality, be intrinsically linked to post Brexit conditions. These will set the economic and social context for the UK and Suffolk over the plan period to 2036. There is absolutely no mention or apparent consideration of the implications of Brexit (hard, soft or otherwise) in the entire document. This is a glaring omission and suggests a major flaw in the plan's foundations. It also raises major questions about any growth estimate or targets that the plan aims to achieve. NPPF (para 159) also requires local plans to be based on up to date evidence. Ignoring Brexit and all the studies that are available to assess the potential impacts as well as using official 2014 sub national population estimates and employment growth estimates from the East of England Forecasting Model of 2016 means that the plan inevitably uses outdated basic assumptions and also suggests that the draft does not comply with the NPPF requirement. It is well recognized that the potential for slower growth is high (given Brexit) so the growth projections in the plan need to be revisited and growth scenarios recalibrated. The well known and highly regarded Centre for Cities research organisation published a report in September 2017 that reviewed the prospects for 62 cities across the UK and the impact of Brexit. Ipswich was one of ten cities identified as being most badly affected with an estimated local economic shrinkage of 2.6%. To ignore Brexit impacts (on jobs, people, investment) in a plan which is intended to go live in 2019 and "deliver growth" through to 2036 is simply not credible.

2. Overarching Comment. On page 9 the report sets out some contextual issues for the plan to address, but (as with Brexit) these make no reference to the impact that technology will have on the way we work, live, consume and travel. There are many game changing technology enablers that have significant potential to impact growth projections and consumer and investment choices. By 2036 no one will be buying petrol or diesel cars, robots will most likely have become common place in the workplace, and artificial intelligence(AI) will become part of everyone's life experience. Changes such as these are not trivial changes and need to be considered in the plan to ensure it plans for the future. As it currently stands the objectives of the plan (Q2 asks for comment)) lack imagination, and could quite frankly apply to anywhere with the place names substituted. They miss an opportunity to really make a difference.

3. Vision. My vision would be something like "ensure each Districts is in the best possible position to prosper in a post Brexit world through economic and housing strategies that promote growth, focus resources and proactively balance the need to adapt and change whilst ensuring the attractions of the area for inward investment and tourism are not prejudiced". The vision also needs to be brave to offer a clear statement on what the plan area aspires to be; retirement enclave and day tourist location; a dynamic business hub with first class education opportunities and collaborative initiatives; a commuter district for London etc. There is no sense that the plan makers have addressed this - so what is the plan aiming to do other than build homes and keep its fingers crossed that good things will follow?

4. Housing.The Housing OAN estimates 2014-36 need to factor in Brexit explicitly (Q7-Q10). Likely demand will shrink if economy does and jobs fall away.

5. Settlement Hierarchy. I agree the SET2 option is the preferred method (given constrained choice) but this is a static and backward looking approach. I would expect the approach to factor in a future context and offer choices as to how the settlement hierarchy will change with the plan policy options. I would also suggest the need to consider the choice between retaining the current hierarchy as set our for the full plan period versus flexing and developing the hierarchy in light of the plan.

6.Spatial Distribution. There is no rationale provided for, nor implications expected from the different settlement/spatial growth options. All the latest urban economic, planning literature and research points to the case for the continued growth of urban areas and the benefits which these bring......and hence their more rapid growth than hinterlands and rural areas. This is no accident. In this context BHD1 County Town Focus has to be the best one overall. It will offer the best chance for the continued vitality of the main towns, offers resource efficiency and sustainable outcomes, as well as a clear focus for jobs, homes and investment. There is simply no justification for BHD2 based on the above understanding of the urban dynamic. BHD3 is a non starter as the transport corridors cannot cope today and the plan offers no clear proposals to improve these. BHD4 is not sustainable. Group new housing alongside employment together in or close to urban locations. It is demonstrably the best solution.

7. I notice on page 32, the option HM2 (and which the Councils prefer page 38) removes Permitted Development Rights for bungalows in perpetuity. This is an interesting about turn. At the Babergh District Planning Committee in August 2017 (the same month that this consultation document was published) BDC dismissed the idea re the Gatton Field development in East Bergholt saying removing the right to build into the roof spaces in the proposed bungalows was not enforceable.Now they want it as a policy!! Also it is not clear whether this poloicy option would apply to all bungalows standing today or just new ones - as we have many in East Bergholt and may get more, this is pertinent. The policy option HM2 though is supported.

8. Rural Exception Sites. Page 37/38. I think an open door policy on these (RE2) which the Councils prefer is open to abuse and offers just more potential to add layers to existing settlements at will. G that the consultation draft proposes to amend settlement boundaries in the plan anyway there is no justification for RE2. So RE1 is preferred.

9. Rural Housing. Clearly CS11 is not fit for purpose so RG1 doesn't make any sense unless the likes of CS11 is reworked. Making allocations RG2 is preferred and for East Berghholt, these should be in line with the revised and approved East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan. Any decisions before that would be premature. A perfect opportunity for the District and Parish Councils to work together.

10. Employment. The data sets used are clearly out of date and likely optimistic (see 1 above). The draft however still suggests employment growth may be an underestimate but with no justification or reference to post Brexit conditions so this approach is unreliable. It is stated in the draft though that even today there is more industrial land than is required, so it would seem obvious to look at the potential to collocate new housing in close proximity, so that jobs and homes are planned to be together ( as opposed to miles apart as seems to be increasingly the case!).

11. Landscape Heritage and Design. I am opposed to L2 option which removes local landscape designations as a basis for decision making. Presumably they would still be used as part of a criteria based approach because BDC can hardly airbrush out AONB policies etc but it would weaken all the existing designations so should be opposed. Option L1 is preferred.
The Suffolk Design Guide 2000 is to be retained. Can this please be reviewed and updated. Time for a refresh otherwise it will become increasingly outdated and just gather dust.

12. Infrastructure. Infrastructure policy is only covered in generalities in the consultation draft so will remain unclear until the IDP is available, However the policy needs clearly to articulate with the spatial distribution policy and be forward looking. So comments on options and policies are at this stage hypothetical, other than to say improving the existing provision to achieve high quality scores across all categories of infrastructure in the the IDP is a priority before even considering what is appropriate for new development. Fibre to all homes and places of work is an essential. East Bergholt is still lacking basic good mobile and broadband signals/speeds and no clear upgrade plans available as far as I can see.
I would though support INF2 that addresses cumulative growth. This is essential.

13. Settlement Boundaries and changes. The map for East Bergholt in pdf format (page 125 of Appendix 3) has settlement boundaries and and new "committed boundaries". The interactive map has none. So I assume the latter is in error. Not ideal for a consultation document! However assuming the pdf document is the right one, the boundary change to include the AONB land that is Gatton Field on Hadleigh Road, East Bergholt is totally unjustified. It is in an AONB, is contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and has in any event been designated erroneously as there is no current planning permission granted before 31st March 2017 because that decision was overturned at JR.
I also note at top of page 76 the document says that "The Councils have taken the approach........that Core Villages will have new growth identified and allocated in the new Local Plan through the allocation of new housing sites". This is of note because on this basis the decision to allocate sites would seem to have been taken already.......so why ask which option is preferred on page 42 RG1 (criteria based approach assessing each case on merit) v RG2 (allocating sites).

14. Community Choice and Neighbourhood Plans. The Districts should be in a position to advise communities with NPs in preparation and made, on best practice and practical steps for monitoring, review and updating. EB need help on this and BDC have a responsibility to help on the what when and how to update and also to support NP groups in this process. With a bit of forward thinking the new local plan could (and should) set out a blue print for all NP groups with a statement of best practice in this regard. This could be inserted in this chapter to demonstrate that the Councils are thinking ahead. With this approach NP groups could effectively work with BD/MSC in monitoring and update and so contribute to a rolling monitoring process which encourages local input. It requires a vision and a will to succeed in producing a well thought through and forward looking plan and hopefully will follow through on this suggestion.

I hope these comments and thoughts are of help to those involved at Babergh and Mid Suffolk in the preparation of the draft plan. I am an economist, chartered town planner and strategist so my feedback is provided from a position of knowledge and experience. I shall look forward to reading the next draft and would be grateful if you could add my contact details (below) so I receive alerts and updates accordingly. Please also confirm receipt of this email, so I know that my views will be considered as part of this statutory consultation process.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Roberts

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive)

Representation ID: 12792

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Great Waldingfield Parish Council

Representation:

On page 9 the report sets out some contextual issues for the plan to address, but (as with Brexit) these make no reference to the impact that technology will have on the way we work, live, consume and travel. There are many game changing technology enablers that have significant potential to impact growth projections and consumer and investment choices. By 2036 no one will be buying petrol or diesel cars, robots will most likely have become common place in the workplace, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) will become part of everyone's life experience. Changes such as these are not trivial changes and need to be considered in the plan to ensure it plans for the future.

Full text:

See attachment