Vision & Objectives

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 44

Object

Representation ID: 612

Received: 11/10/2017

Respondent: mr david martin [3072]

Representation:

Babergh Peninsular strategic AONB Map - Dark green area (on uploaded AONB Map) should be considered for inclusion as AONB, this area already has numerous Public Footpaths, fantastic vistas, woodlands, wildlife, plants and insects

Object

Representation ID: 708

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Martyn Levett [2700]

Representation:

1. You will convert villages into dormitory communities with 43% of the working population working outside the area.
2. Persons working out of the area do not make a financial contribution to the community but in the outside areas.
3. Your prioritisation so far in the infrastructure has done nothing to improve public transport (reduced), major traffic congestion (increased) is now critical, Park and Ride withdrawn, reduced local services, and higher community charges have not improved the services you should provide.

Object

Representation ID: 735

Received: 06/11/2017

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

Representation:

VISION: Set against the NPPF requirements, this draft seems to perpetuate the historic situation of the economic and building issues being always set above the environmental and social issues, with the latter issues then dealt with in an ad hoc unstrategic way. We object to Quality of decision-making & aspects of new developments which harm settlements unnecessarily. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE: Some items under this heading are welcome in outline, if broad to the point of wooliness; but many details are evidently half-hidden and pre-programmed. WE URGE: The formulation of a green strategy for Sudbury area, see detail.

Comment

Representation ID: 771

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Kevin Armstrong [3132]

Representation:

The environmental importance of the AONBs is acknowledged but not emphasised. Perhaps you are relying on other authorities to look after the issues involved. I believe that environmental considerations should be high priorities in Babergh.

Object

Representation ID: 783

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Supporters Against Fressingfield Expansion (SAFE) (Dr John Castro) [3157]

Representation:

Under the localism act of 2011 if communities are to be allocated power to shape their village or town, they must be allowed to not only bring forward allocations of land for development, but be able to limit development if not appropriate or needed. Here the District Council are misleading communities by limiting the true role of Neighbourhood Plans. This is not true democracy. Communities must retain the right to limit development.

Fressingfield is a unique village with 58 listed buildings and a majorly important Conservation Area. The village is framed by rolling arable land and trees. The Draft Plan does not appear to support the protection of unique environments such as ours.

Support

Representation ID: 983

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake) [3182]

Representation:

Environment should include wildlife corridor protection.
Within the economy, for rural areas particularly, emphasis on encouraging employment and retail would help to offset the dormitory nature of some hinterland villages.

Object

Representation ID: 1203

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Diana Chapman [3227]

Representation:

The vision should highlight, more prominently, a more sustainable future for the area through a strategy that minimises the need to travel by car and promotes movement by walking, cycling and public transport. Connectivity and accessibility for all should be a key feature.

Support

Representation ID: 1639

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Winston Parish Council (Mrs Lizzie Taurozevicius) [3352]

Representation:

We agree with this.

Support

Representation ID: 1641

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Winston Parish Council (Mrs Lizzie Taurozevicius) [3352]

Representation:

We agree.

Support

Representation ID: 1678

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Kathie Guthrie [3353]

Representation:

We need to attract employers to ensure employment for all the housing estates which are being built. Also ensure the correct housing in is in the right place but I don't see large housing estates necessarily fulfil that objective

Comment

Representation ID: 2084

Received: 23/08/2017

Respondent: Equality and Human Rights Commission (Mr Tim White) [2070]

Representation:

The Commission does not have the resources to respond to all consultations, but will respond to consultations where it considers they raise issues of strategic importance.
Local, parish and town councils and other public authorities, as well as organisations exercising public functions, have obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in the Equality Act 2010 to consider the effect of their policies and decisions on people sharing particular protected characteristics. The PSED is an on-going legal requirement and must be complied with as part of the planning process. The Commission is the regulator for the PSED and the Planning Inspectorate is also subject to it. In essence, you must consider the potential for planning proposals to have an impact on equality for different groups of people. To assist, you will find our technical guidance here :
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/technical-guidance-public-sector-equality-duty-england

Object

Representation ID: 2119

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Drinkstone Parish Council (Mrs Daphne Youngs) [3372]

Representation:

The vision is notable for its lack of ambition. Apart from the drive to build more houses there is little to address an adequate mix of housing types, for generating quality employment opportunities, or to address the key environmental issues the district faces. Little in the way of a strategic vision for improving the district's infrastructure is proposed. There should be a clear commitment to improve energy efficiency and promote renewable energy.

Comment

Representation ID: 2369

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Polstead Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin) [3481]

Representation:

Polstead Parish Council is content with the Vision and Objectives set out in the Consultation Document.

Comment

Representation ID: 2887

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost) [3590]

Representation:

We agree with the vision.We would urge the usage of Brown Field Sites and Redundant Buildings in order to save productive land and green spaces. Housing required is low cost , small and affordable houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 2894

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Robin Weaver [3596]

Representation:

It is essential that new housing is not only in the right place, but has the right infrastructure and facilities in place when development is occupied - infrastructure (doctors, public transport, schools, etc) in many core villages is already stretched or inadequate.

Comment

Representation ID: 3117

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Clive Harris [3613]

Representation:

The needed transport infrastructure is missing from the Local Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 3634

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Alan Lewis [3425]

Representation:

The plan needs to have a vision statement and this is currently lacking. The objectives could be used to inform the vision statement.

Comment

Representation ID: 3636

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Alan Lewis [3425]

Representation:

I agree with the objectives set out, but they are rather vague and need to be more specific and measurable so that progress against them can be quantified.I would like to see a commitment to support and improve rural public transport, to minimise the effects of pollution (noise, light and air) caused y new development, and to provide support for local groups to enhance communities.
I feel the council should have crime prevention as an objective part of the strategy to address this pro actively to prevent an increase associated with higher population.

Comment

Representation ID: 3926

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Alan Squirrell [3345]

Representation:

Whilst Babergh District Council Planning continue to openly refuse to take on board objections made to a development application by local residents, and Parish Councils, instead choose to 'know it all' and plough on regardless, rather than address real issues, the only conclusion can be that visions of a nineteen thirties Germany will still persist.
Even the high Court have commented upon BDC Planning not adhering to Publically Stated Policy. Hip Hip Horay for East Bergholt.

Comment

Representation ID: 3949

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Alan Squirrell [3345]

Representation:

I wonder if BDC will actually bother to follow this public consultation plan, especially with regards to planning permissions, and not waste our public money on court cases defending the indefensible?
That would be a refreshing change in itself. The planning department should realise THEY, are paid PUBLIC money, to serve US.
I wonder how many of us have been suffered service cut backs, whilst lawyers, Large Landowners etc. are made richer, against the actual NEEDS of a local area.?

Object

Representation ID: 4341

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group [3788]

Representation:

1. No solution provided for Sudbury's traffic. 2. Plan will be destructive of beautiful & special environment & wildlife of Sudbury. 3 Local infrastructure already overstretched.

Object

Representation ID: 4521

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Dr David Taylor [3791]

Representation:

The bulk of new housing should be council houses so as to be affordable for local people.
Sudbury Western Relief Road proposals should be withdrawn.
Encourage cycling and walking.

Comment

Representation ID: 5159

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Stephen Fisher [3865]

Representation:

At this point the Local Plan seems lacking a statement of vision . The council needs to think about what that vision might be. From a Beyton point of view the vision should be to secure the best quality of life possible for everybody residing within the village, and to encourage the village to prosper by maintaining and enhancing the local environment, providing high quality housing for all, supporting the local economy and village culture, and enabling the whole village community to be involved in supporting this success.

Comment

Representation ID: 5219

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: Mr David Middleton [3863]

Representation:

The documents indicate that the villages of Claydon and Barham will double in size if all the suggested residential developments progress. The infrastructure of the villages is insufficient to support this. Roads are already congested and the schools are full. Building around the existing villages will adversely effect recreational activities such as walking and cycling. The buffer zone between Ipswich and Claydon needs to be retained to stop the villages being swallowed up by Ipswich.

Comment

Representation ID: 5530

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Colin Johnston [3795]

Representation:

I do not see a vision being articulated here, rather a statement about 4 areas which need to be managed. A vision should be both inspiring and attainable and yet build on the lessons of the past. My vision is to 'engage and empower local communities to preserve and improve their environment and by so doing enrich their quality of life.' Please ban the word 'sustainable', the most abused word in planning circles, usually found next to a noun like 'development' to make the latter sound virtuous.

Comment

Representation ID: 6663

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Powell [2813]

Representation:

True vision should be about 100 years not 5. What will our great grandchildren have to say about what we have done?

Object

Representation ID: 7812

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Dr Ian Russell [3868]

Representation:

We disagree that the development of proposals for a Sudbury Western Relief Road project can support the objectives set out in the plan. We propose the development of a Sudbury Area Roads Plan including a bridge near Great Cornard to take away all HGVs and other traffic passing through the town to Ballingdon Bridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 7839

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: John Tuppen [1783]

Representation:

This just seems to be geared to policy decisions that have already been made, citing values that support those decisions.
I would imagine that all the Villages will be concerned over the social effects on their communities, with an influx of commuters, the effects of both atmospheric and noise pollution and the adverse impacts on local wildlife.
Healthy Communities and Infrastructure needs to come first. We need a policy which limits the housing development in an area to that supported by its infrastructure (or clearly defined enhancements) and which does not materially change its character.

Object

Representation ID: 9077

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Daniel lord-vince [4252]

Representation:

This is a significant over development of Sproughton which currently has around 581 dwellings - this would be an increase of 397% in parish size. It is completely disproportionate and would result in Bramford joining with Sproughton and Sproughton being absorbed by Ipswich. Not so much 'creeping coalescence' as 'complete digestion'. A much fairer basis for development would be a pro-rated approach with some tweaking for those settlements that are very small in size.

Object

Representation ID: 9784

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Colin Johnston [3795]

Representation:

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.