Q6

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 73

Object

Representation ID: 1

Received: 21/08/2017

Respondent: Mr Carroll Reeve [2685]

Representation:

The NPPF at Section 150 onwards relates to Plan-making. Your proposition above jumps to paragraph 156. This ignores the guidance at paragraph 155 for early and meaningful engagement etc. Without this the Plan cannot be compliant with the NPPF taken as a whole.

Comment

Representation ID: 105

Received: 20/09/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sara Knight [2816]

Representation:

Environmental protection is more than just conservation. A forward-thinking strategy would place more emphasis on positive measures to create alternative energy resources at a local level as this will be a key issue in the time-frame of this development plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 522

Received: 06/11/2017

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

Representation:

RPC agrees subject to priority being given to expansion of social housing and bungalows rather than large detached housing approved historically.

Comment

Representation ID: 910

Received: 17/10/2017

Respondent: Mr David Brown [2956]

Representation:

It is essential that any undertakings given by Developers in respect of Planning Conditions are upheld without any dilution whatsoever. Historically it has been common for Developers to renege on the conditions they have signed up to.

Comment

Representation ID: 932

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Roy Barker [3189]

Representation:

Energy Efficient

Comment

Representation ID: 1223

Received: 20/10/2017

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

Representation:

Any Local Enterprise Partnership established to promote economic growth in the area should be consulted on how to best support and achieve economic growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 1377

Received: 23/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Alf Hannan [3267]

Representation:

Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made

Comment

Representation ID: 1435

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Mr William Eaton [3288]

Representation:

A1066, A143, A140.
All our major roads are mainly single carriage ways.
Dual carriage way improvements required due to the increase in vehicles especially heavy goods.
Brexit :- maybe increase in container traffic to Suffolk ports.

Comment

Representation ID: 1640

Received: 26/10/2017

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

Representation:

No comment

Comment

Representation ID: 1901

Received: 29/10/2017

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

Representation:

Specific co-operation to support the cross-boundary Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan, in order to secure its timely and successful progress.

Comment

Representation ID: 1932

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Tania Farrow [3375]

Representation:

Sustainable transport and better telecommunications

Comment

Representation ID: 1997

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Braintree District Council (Ms Julie O'Hara) [3384]

Representation:

Braintree District Council draws attention to the presence of cross boundary issues relating to

i) Sudbury bypass; and
ii) Braintree District desegnated "Protected Lanes" close to the boundary

We trust that these matters will be taken into consideration when formulating future versions of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 2352

Received: 02/11/2017

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

Representation:

See response to question 5A

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: 2357

Received: 02/11/2017

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

Representation:

Neighbourhood Plans and Village Design Statements should be given appropriate weight. Planning decisions should consider adjacent applications when determining an application for development as the total impact on an area can be severe. Emphasis should be on developing brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 2414

Received: 01/11/2017

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

Representation:

The plan does not take into account the need for many people to live in more densely populated areas such as Ipswich and the Ipswich overspill, i.e the possibility of building upwards on the same square footage of land. Some people want or choose to live in more densely populated areas for ease of commute to work, lifestyle such as bars, theatres etc. Just because housing can be more densely populated does not mean it should not be well thought out space within the property, but there is scope for densely populated areas in some places and that should not be discounted without consultation of the needs of those people who want to work within a short walk commute in areas such as Ipswich.

Comment

Representation ID: 2439

Received: 01/11/2017

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

Representation:

Anglian Water is not identified as a prescribed body for the Duty to Co-operate under the relevant regulations. However we would welcome the opportunity to comment on the relevant sections of the Draft Local Plan when these are being drafted ideally prior to formal consultation. Examples of district wide policies of relevance to Anglian Water are as follows:

* flood risk,
* water supply,
* foul drainage and sewage treatment,
* surface water drainage/SuDS,
* water efficiency and
* renewable energy generation (please comments relating to Q52)

Comment

Representation ID: 2554

Received: 03/11/2017

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

Representation:

Cockfield Parish Council believes this questions has no relevance to the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 2846

Received: 04/11/2017

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

Representation:

Deliver pro-active co-operation in order to fulfil the Duty to Support Neighbourhood Plan groups and especially those working across boundaries, such as the DDNP, in order to secure timely and successful progress.

Support

Representation ID: 2914

Received: 04/11/2017

Respondent: Cllr Diana Kearsley [3598]

Representation:

I do support this but wold also like to see serious consideration given to the idea to create a new 'garden village' to provide good purposeful housing mix, health centre. schools, sports facilities etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 3111

Received: 05/11/2017

Respondent: Iain Pocock [3496]

Representation:

Adequate consideration needs to be given to transport infrastructure across the district and the need to disburse the non-urban growth

Comment

Representation ID: 3402

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr John Kitson [3657]

Representation:

None identified

Comment

Representation ID: 3553

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: angela harvey [3670]

Representation:

Individual and community wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 3592

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Simon Oldfield [3365]

Representation:

The crucial planning framework should be: At least 70% of development should be in urban areas and 30% or less in rural areas to preserve traditional villages. Tourism is now a vital industry in Babergh and Mid Suffolk. Visitor numbers will decline rapidly if our traditional villages are ruined by development such as in Acton where 200 houses are planned and in Long Melford which faces similar over-development. Important tourism ventures such as the Wool Towns Initiative - designed to boost the local economy - will be fruitless if our traditional rural environment is destroyed by developers

Object

Representation ID: 3645

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Neil Lister [2850]

Representation:

Defining functional area for sustainable off road transport (for business/recreation) and defining objectively assessed need. This is never planned for/provided from day one. Here's your chance.

Comment

Representation ID: 3972

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: ms sally sparrow [3751]

Representation:

I am not aware of any other issues

Object

Representation ID: 4021

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Miss Abigail Mayston [3743]

Representation:

Ipswich state they have insufficient land and require 4000 more houses. Why is Babergh picking up the full allocation? This goes beyond a duty to cooperate.

Comment

Representation ID: 4058

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Hurdwell [3747]

Representation:

Neighbourhood Plans and Village Design Statements should be given appropriate weight. Planning decisions should consider adjacent applications when determining an application for development as the total impact on an area may destroy rural environments.

Comment

Representation ID: 4116

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds) [3572]

Representation:

Cooperation has its limits; it should be a genuine partnership; development should be proportionate and should not be at the expense of or result in the undermining of the community that may be affected.

Object

Representation ID: 4442

Received: 08/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Carroll Reeve [2685]

Representation:

Defined housing market area goes beyond JLP boundary. Demands of adjacent areas and Ipswich in particular, requires an urgent review of levels of urban density to start to address and contain the sprawl of the County Town into rural areas. See attached paper.

Comment

Representation ID: 4549

Received: 10/11/2017

Respondent: Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce) [3014]

Representation:

There needs to be "sign off" with Suffolk County Council on delivering the 'priority' infrastructure investment required.