Q5A (p16)

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 109

Comment

Representation ID: 104

Received: 20/09/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sara Knight [2816]

Representation:

Although the New Anglia LEP is noted as a key partner I would like to see the importance of local theatre to the local identity made more explicit.

Support

Representation ID: 260

Received: 25/09/2017

Respondent: Mr Simon Barrett [2874]

Representation:

Agree with plans duty to cooperate.

Support

Representation ID: 516

Received: 06/11/2017

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

Representation:

RPC considers that strategic services, infrastructure and communications should be prioritised throughout Mid Suffolk to ensure core and hinterland villages will be adequately supported.

Object

Representation ID: 627

Received: 12/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Ian Evans [3090]

Representation:

The sheer volume of land earmarked in Copdock/Washbrook is unfair, especially with neighbouring Wolsey Grange taken into account. I'm not against housing and I do support sustainable levels in the villages, off the Old London Road but the volumes being looked at will overwhelm the villages. I would support a halving of the land being made available, particularly off the Old London Road - we must take our fair share. But compared to other areas, Copdock and Washbrook is being asked to shoulder an unfair number when there is seemingly no plan for extra infrastructure - roads, schools, doctors.

Object

Representation ID: 715

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Martyn Levett [2700]

Representation:

You are not consulting with Rural England nor the Fabian Society who have valuable resource input on the need to retain green space in a village and between villages. It is unclear to me whether the Suffolk Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2013 is the priority or whether the Refreshed Strategic Outcome is being adopted. You will note the significant omission in the latter which omits "outcome 2" in the first 1- 3 yr plan ie the omission that Suffolk residents have access to a healthy environment and take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing is noticable.

Object

Representation ID: 789

Received: 16/10/2017

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

Representation:

The duty to co-operate with Local Communities is a statutory requirement under the Localism Act. Under the present arrangements Neighbourhood Plans are not given appropriate weight and communities wishes are ignored.
It is not appropriate that a key DtC partner is the Greater London Authority.

Support

Representation ID: 911

Received: 17/10/2017

Respondent: Mr David Brown [2956]

Representation:

I support the objectives of the plan but am wary of interference by Central Government in order to satisfy a political objective that takes no account of local sensitivities

Support

Representation ID: 931

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Roy Barker [3189]

Representation:

Agree

Support

Representation ID: 1222

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer) [3234]

Representation:

Agree. The issues identified are those which require input from other bodies in the locality to be able to progress improvements.

Comment

Representation ID: 1376

Received: 23/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Alf Hannan [3267]

Representation:

Yes. It is appropriate

Comment

Representation ID: 1431

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Mr William Eaton [3288]

Representation:

In agreement with reservations ie
The interference by Central Government to satisfy a political objectives that takes no account of local sensitivities

Comment

Representation ID: 1638

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Hoxne Parish Council (Mrs Sara Foote) [3200]

Representation:

No Comment.

Comment

Representation ID: 1900

Received: 29/10/2017

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

Representation:

Consult with more Suffolk based organisations or Suffolk specific bodies, such as Suffolk Preservation Society and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, in order to ensure the protection of our natural and built heritage and way of life.

Support

Representation ID: 1927

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Tania Farrow [3375]

Representation:

There appears to be involvement of all key local bodies

Comment

Representation ID: 2083

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Great Finborough Parish Council (Mrs Paula Gladwell) [3413]

Representation:

Don't disagree providing we have the opportunity to have the means to express our opinions and concerns in a meaningful fashion without being ignored which is our experience.

Comment

Representation ID: 2351

Received: 02/11/2017

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

Representation:

The Parish Council firmly believes that without cooperation between those planning authorities in neighbouring areas, often in adjacent counties, that a cohesive Local Plan cannot be made. Residents at the perimeter of the MSDC jurisdiction will often view towns in adjacent counties as their focus for healthcare, shopping, entertainment and recreational pursuits and are consequently drawn out of Suffolk for these purposes, sometimes increasing the burden on those other counties or, of course, vice versa.

Comment

Representation ID: 2353

Received: 02/11/2017

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

Representation:

We agree that Babergh DC and Mid Suffolk DC should cooperate.

Object

Representation ID: 2413

Received: 01/11/2017

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

Representation:

The Parish Council have found it very difficult to provide a response to the Joint Local Plan. There is a lot of information coupled with 77 questions and a very short space in which a group of people who are not qualified in this matter have to organise other commitments to provide responses.

Questions about Duty to Cooperate completely ignores the duty to engage as set out in paragraph 155 NPPF. Whilst the Duty to Co-operate has been over a 12 week period, small parishes such as ourselves do not meet every month.

Object

Representation ID: 2438

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Anglian Water (Mr Stewart Patience) [3482]

Representation:

Reference is made to the provision and enhancement o strategic infrastructure improvements provided by a range of public bodies but no reference is made to infrastructure provided by private utility companies including Anglian Water.

Support

Representation ID: 2553

Received: 03/11/2017

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

Representation:

Cockfield Parish Council agrees with the key issues.

Comment

Representation ID: 2702

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Ms Carole Skippen [2834]

Representation:

I am wary of interference by Central Government in order to satisfy a political objective that takes no account of local sensitivities.

Support

Representation ID: 2826

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Coxhead [3579]

Representation:

Support

Comment

Representation ID: 2845

Received: 04/11/2017

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

Representation:

There is a difference between acknowledging the Duty to Co-operate and acting positively and pro-actively to ensure it. Government is concerned about this; the implications of proposals for a Statement of Common Ground contained in the White Paper: Planning for the right homes in the right places will need to be addressed in the next draft of the JLP.

To consult more widely with Suffolk-based organisations or Suffolk-specific bodies, e.g. Suffolk Preservation Society and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, to ensure the protection of our natural and built heritage and way of life and to draw positive advantage from their expertise.

Object

Representation ID: 3078

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Fletcher [2846]

Representation:

In regard to infrastructure the Councils seem to have concentrated exclusively on highway agencies, If one is going to refer to Infrastructure Provision then surely there ought be liaison with;-
Railway Agencies,
Power Agencies, and
Water and Sewage Agencies.

OTHERWISE the KEY PLANNING ISSUE under Infrastructure Provision may be better and more accurately described as TRANSPORT PROVISION

Also it is considered that the phrase "Provision and enhancement of strategic infrastructure improvements" is poorly composed with tautology by use of enhancement and improvements in same sentence. It would read better as:-
Provision and improvement of strategic infrastructure

Object

Representation ID: 3109

Received: 05/11/2017

Respondent: Iain Pocock [3496]

Representation:

I do not believe adequate consideration has been given to date to the interaction with the local community at Copdock and Washbrook where communication has been poor to non-existent with many residents being completely unaware of the proposals until near the end of the consultation process. The proposals being completely disproportionate relative to the nature and character of the village and surrounding countryside, environmental impact, other developments already proposed and the already struggling road infrastructure. Limited housing (10-15%) adjacent to the old A12 would be much more sustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 3163

Received: 05/11/2017

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

Representation:

We agree.

Support

Representation ID: 3399

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr John Kitson [3657]

Representation:

Generally agree with the issues for the reasons outlined in the consultation document.

Comment

Representation ID: 3552

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: angela harvey [3670]

Representation:

From a quick look at these key issues it is hard to tell. My instinctive response is to be concerned that genuine costs will be looked at and community wellbeing will be properly included in any consideration/measurement of 'impact'.

Object

Representation ID: 3624

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Dr John Webb [3612]

Representation:

The need to help Ipswich appear to be unfairly divided between the districts surrounding Ipswich.

Before grabbing for Babergh territory, Ipswich should be making use of the numerous brownfield sites and derelict properties within its boundaries.

Ipswich should not be allowed to trample on the areas close to its boundaries, and any promises made should be treated with suspicion. One of the justifications given for the closure of Ipswich Airport was a statement by the inspector that there were plenty of alternatives available . 20 or so years later we have yet to find a single one.

Object

Representation ID: 3644

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Neil Lister [2850]

Representation:

Object to one of the key DtC partners in issues other than 'housing' being the IHMA. IHMA is single issue conglomeration and should have no remit for 'Employment', 'Retail, leisure & other commercial', 'Infrastructure provision', 'Environmental protection'.

Local Development Orders - BDC shouldn't cooperate in any mechanism allowing activity without going through planning permission process. Undemocratic/ damaging. Everyone should have input into deciding what comes to pass.

Sproughton Enterprise Park - BDC should not cooperate in encouraging more road traffic to a part of the district where residents' lives are currently shortened by air pollution partly generated by road traffic.