Q3

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 114

Comment

Representation ID: 19

Received: 10/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Morley [2713]

Representation:

To protect the UK's food production capability by limiting housing development to lower-grade land only.

Comment

Representation ID: 20

Received: 10/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Morley [2713]

Representation:

To limit the rate of housing development in any community to that which can be supported by its infrastructure or includes infrastructure development; that enhances that community and does not materially change its character.

Comment

Representation ID: 25

Received: 31/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Ben Gilligan [2725]

Representation:

We need to encourage leisure and tourism businesses to the region to encourage leisure and tourism to the region.

Support

Representation ID: 354

Received: 27/09/2017

Respondent: Mr Phil Harrison [2905]

Representation:

There should be a stronger focus on better rail and road links to local businesses to allow easier commutes otherwise no one of working age will move to the area. I support the push for more business and business parks to boost employment.

Comment

Representation ID: 496

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Fletcher [2846]

Representation:

OBJECTIVES - Failure to have an Objective that specifically identifies the need to safeguard the Districts historic heritage (both designated and non designated assets) from unsympathetic change and or destruction.

Support

Representation ID: 515

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Redgrave Parish Council (Mr John Giddings) [2992]

Representation:

RPC considers the development of all categories of communication to very important to the more rural communities in Suffolk.

Comment

Representation ID: 596

Received: 11/10/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Mockford [3075]

Representation:

Infrastructure upgrades should precede the granting of large scale planning permissions.

For smaller housing developments there should be a more rigorous assessment of the cumulative impact on the existing infrastructure before permission is granted, and improvements should be made before any development begins where they are deemed necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 786

Received: 16/10/2017

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

Representation:

Under " environment" - housing should be prohibited in areas of flood risk.
Also add in the Neighbourhood Plans should be binding being reflective of local communities wishes.

Support

Representation ID: 913

Received: 17/10/2017

Respondent: Mr David Brown [2956]

Representation:

I agree with the objectives. However, it will not be long before a relief road around Elmswell crossing the railway on a bridge becomes an absolute necessity. Contribution to this should be part of any planning conditions for future developments.

Support

Representation ID: 928

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Roy Barker [3189]

Representation:

Not at the moment
Light on employment and infrastructure

Comment

Representation ID: 998

Received: 18/10/2017

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

Representation:

add local employment and retail, particularly in rural areas to offset dormitory nature of many villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 1005

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Simon Bell [3201]

Representation:

Specific attention should be given to support identified growth in the area of Science Parks and non-identified areas of support and potential growth in agri-related businesses. in particular, what universities and colleges will support the growth of Science Parks and in what sectors? What is the specialism from which the District can derive the need for research and innovation from?

Key sectors include creative industries, construction, tourism and hospitality, yet, again, there is no specific support or vision within the plan to support these key sectors.

Comment

Representation ID: 1096

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Graham Shorrock [3083]

Representation:

Housing development should not be at the expense of the village structure. For example housing development on the Ipswich fringe could severely effect Sproughton with the potential that it could simply become part of Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 1204

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Diana Chapman [3227]

Representation:

I support the objectives listed in the document. However, I would wish to add an additional category that relates to sustainable patterns of development, connectivity, accessibility and movement around the area. In particular the Plan should seek to locate and design new development to promote sustainable travel for all, minimise the need to rely on the private car, promote walking, cycling and public transport. Accessibility for all, including those with limited mobility and accompanying children and the elderly should also be refelected in the objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 1373

Received: 23/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Alf Hannan [3267]

Representation:

No

Comment

Representation ID: 1425

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Mr William Eaton [3288]

Representation:

All roads in Palgrave are high speed "rat runs" between A1066 and A143.
Portable speed monitors should be introduced as vehicle speeds are a major concern to our villagers.
Maintaining white lining especially on bends to avoid "cutting corners"
We have a shortage of pavements especially in the village and Denmark hill.
Low cost street lighting should be enhanced to ensure safety of the villagers.

Support

Representation ID: 1527

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt [3325]

Representation:

Infrastructure improvements need to be in place before housing developments are approved. Development should not be permitted in flood risk areas.

For smaller housing developments including windfall sites and infill, the cumulative impact of the developments must be considered and each individual application not considered in isolation.

Comment

Representation ID: 1897

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote) [2849]

Representation:

To ensure that all parts of the District receive equal weight, consideration and investment and do not become satellite villages reliant solely on large towns which may be in another county.
A greater need to engage more, listen more and respond more positively to the views of the communities as per the spirit and intent of the Localism Act 2011.

Comment

Representation ID: 1904

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Tania Farrow [3375]

Representation:

I would like to see a greater emphasis on sustainable transport with better options for public transport including rail links and bus routes

Comment

Representation ID: 2010

Received: 06/11/2017

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

Representation:

A explicit commitment to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions as should be an overarching objective within the vision. Reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable energy has an impact on all aspects of the local plan. There should be a clear and explicit plan for infrastructure improvement over the whole district, and that infrastructure upgrades should precede the granting of large scale planning permissions. For smaller developments there should be a more rigorous assessment of the cumulative impact on existing infrastructure before permission is granted, and improvements should be made before development begins where they are deemed necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 2337

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day) [3474]

Representation:

No

Comment

Representation ID: 2342

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup) [3460]

Representation:

Better transport links especially roads and public transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 2410

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Preston St Mary Parish Council (Nicola Smith) [3484]

Representation:

As set out in response to question 2 the need for increased services and infrastructure alongside considerable growth in housing across the district, paying particular attention to the fact that in many rural locations there is an increased aging demographic and their needs have to be met, with appropriate provision of housing, medical services etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 2548

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed) [3431]

Representation:

Cockfield Parish Council has not identified any additions necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 2726

Received: 09/11/2017

Respondent: Wetherden Parish COuncil (Mrs Sonia Jewers) [3542]

Representation:

Consideration for the heritage of rural villages and hamlets that are integral to the landscape of the Suffolk countryside. The beauty and unique character of many of our towns and villages are enhanced because of these listed buildings, full consideration to the preservation of this must be given Once it's gone, its gone.

Comment

Representation ID: 2753

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Allen [3553]

Representation:

I applaud the inclusion of 'healthy community' objectives but more consideration needs to be given to medical services, specifically hospital provision and more local surgeries. While the population is increasing in Sudbury, and expected to continue to do so, we have lost 2 hospitals and gained only one out-patient clinic with no emergency provision. Local surgeries are generally overloaded and doctor's appointments very difficult to obtain.
Under this heading, too, there is less provision in the town for children's sport and athletics as middle schools have closed, one of which had extensive playing fields and tennis courts.

Comment

Representation ID: 2823

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Coxhead [3579]

Representation:

In addition to the Ipswich Northern by pass there are two villages that need by passes if the growth in the countyside is to continue; they are Elmswell and Haughley

Comment

Representation ID: 2842

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson) [3556]

Representation:

Closer co-operation with neighbouring authorities.

Ensure northern parts of Mid Suffolk receive equal consideration rather than continuing to favour settlements along the A14 corridor.

Positively intervene to secure provision of infrastructure investment especially A140 and A143 corridors.

Engage more closely with and listen to communities as per Localism Act 2011.

Comment

Representation ID: 2895

Received: 04/11/2017

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

Representation:

None

Support

Representation ID: 3160

Received: 05/11/2017

Respondent: Offton and Willisham Parish Council (Mr Michael Bolton) [3632]

Representation:

Listed objectives include 'to support the Ipswich Northern Route project'. In particular there is a need to support any road infrastructure project to bring motorway access from London - Ipswich - Felixstowe which would run south of Ipswich, and motorway from Felixstowe to A14/A140 junction area running north of Ipswich.