Suffolk Coastal Consultations | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | All Responses to Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options Consultation
Question: 1.2) Introduction Comment on a section of the document - please specify the paragraph you wish to comment on
| | | | | | Choose between | | | |
Responses
| | | | | | Mrs julie cornforth (0043) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | | How the hell do you expect the people off the streets to understand this garbage. You should be ashamed. Why can you not send every household in Felixstowe a questionaire "do you want a housing estate on the Felixstowe peninsula or not"...its not rocket science is it, but trying to understand this "core strategy etc is.. | | NO HOUSING ON THE FELIXSTOWE PENINSULA
| | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>The East of England Plan, adopted in May 2008, is the revised Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy which covers Felixstowe. Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Core Strategy must be in conformity with the Plan in order for it to be considered sound.
The main objectives of the East of England Plan, as set out in its vision [BULLSHIT], are:
? To reduce the need to travel.
? To address housing shortages.
? To realise the economic potential of the Region and its people.
? To improve the quality of life [BULLSHIT] for the people of the Region.
? To improve and conserve the Region’s environment.
These objectives are reflected in the individual policies set out in the East of England Plan and, where relevant, we have referenced them in our representations.
Felixstowe falls within the Haven Gateway sub-region of the East of England Plan. The sub-regional [BULLSHIT] strategy aims to achieve ‘transformational [BULLSHIT] development’ and ‘change throughout the Haven Gateway’. Therefore, the relevant policies relating to the Haven Gateway are also referenced throughout these representations.
The Core Strategy should take account of Felixstowe’s strategic [BULLSHIT] role in the Haven Gateway, as well as the wider context of the East of England, and must support and deliver the policies of the East of England Plan. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>The main objectives of the East of England Plan, as set out in its vision [BULLSHIT], are:
To reduce the need to travel.
To address housing shortages.
To realise the economic potential of the Region and its people.
To improve the quality of life [BULLSHIT] for the people of the Region.
To improve and conserve the Region’s environment. </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Katie Brett (0805) Alsop Verrill Town Planning & Development Consult. (0130) Company (Local) (0004) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | The East of England Plan, adopted in May 2008, is the revised Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy which covers Felixstowe. Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Core Strategy must be in conformity with the Plan in order for it to be considered sound.
The main objectives of the East of England Plan, as set out in its vision [BULLSHIT], are:
? To reduce the need to travel.
? To address housing shortages.
? To realise the economic potential of the Region and its people.
? To improve the quality of life [BULLSHIT] for the people of the Region.
? To improve and conserve the Region’s environment.
These objectives are reflected in the individual policies set out in the East of England Plan and, where relevant, we have referenced them in our representations.
Felixstowe falls within the Haven Gateway sub-region of the East of England Plan. The sub-regional [BULLSHIT] strategy aims to achieve ‘transformational [BULLSHIT] development’ and ‘change throughout the Haven Gateway’. Therefore, the relevant policies relating to the Haven Gateway are also referenced throughout these representations.
The Core Strategy should take account of Felixstowe’s strategic [BULLSHIT] role in the Haven Gateway, as well as the wider context of the East of England, and must support and deliver the policies of the East of England Plan. | | The main objectives of the East of England Plan, as set out in its vision [BULLSHIT], are:
To reduce the need to travel.
To address housing shortages.
To realise the economic potential of the Region and its people.
To improve the quality of life [BULLSHIT] for the people of the Region.
To improve and conserve the Region’s environment. | | No attached files |
|
| | | | Councillor Geof Butterwick (1139) Melton Parish Council (0041) Parish Council (0001) | | Introduction | | Concern has been expressed by residents and councillors that it is impractical for people to devote sufficient time to considering the lengthy Sustainability Appraisal document at the same time as the two other, shorter, consultation documents. It is hoped that the consultation deadline for this aspect will be significantly extended.
It is hoped that the consultation deadline for this aspect will be significantly extended.
| | Section: Introduction
Paragraph: 6-7 Role of Sustainability Appraisal
OBJECTING | | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mr Richard Ward (0815) Suffolk Preservation Society (0116) Association (Local) (0012) | | General Comments | | Suffolk Coastal District Council – LDF – Core Strategy and Development Control Policies – Preferred Options Consultation.
I refer to the above and your letter of the 5th December, 2008. I am pleased to be able to submit to you, in the attached document, the Society’s comments which are aimed at assisting the District Council in the formulation of the submission versions of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies documents.
The detailed comments attached have been formulated very much to follow the way the original text and document has been drafted to make it easier to incorporate the Society’s suggestions. However, in doing this it has not been possible to raise one major concern that the Society has about the whole Core Strategy and Development Control Policies. It appreciates and takes full account of the guidance given to LPAs regarding the preparation of LDF documents, and the contents of the various PPS and RSS14. However, we are concerned as to whether in total the two documents sufficiently acknowledge the district’s special environment, in terms of both the historic built heritage and landscape/countryside and to afford them sufficient protection in the future while new development is integrated into the area. In the end, this is the balance which has to be struck when planning for the future in the district. The Society, because of this concern, remains unconvinced that this balance has yet to be achieved.
Therefore, the Society asks that this issue, which is part of our response to the documents, is considered most carefully and that subsequent changes are made to the submission versions of both, to make it clear that the council/LPA are committed to protecting both these elements of the environment.
| | Suffolk Coastal District Council – LDF – Core Strategy and Development Control Policies – Preferred Options Consultation.
| | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Representation to the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options Consultation
We write on behalf of our clients, Notcutts Ltd, and wish to make the following representations to the latest consultation on the emerging Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. It should be noted that we broadly support the Council's preferred policy options subject to consideration of the following points with particular regard to proposed housing and employment policy. Separate representations have been made to the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Issues and Options Consultation in respect of a number of sites in the District in our clients' ownership (as identified under separate cover, DPP Ref: GA/EC/1044309/L0002ec). With regard to the suggested site allocations, we support the Council's overall spatial [BULLSHIT] strategy and settlement hierarchy towards the achievement of sustainable [BULLSHIT] development.
Housing Policy:
With regard to proposed housing for the future, we support Objective 2 – Housing Growth and its aim 'to meet the District's housing requirement', as well as its outcome whereby the Council affirm that 'a sufficient number of dwellings to meet identified requirements set out in the Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy will be created as a minimum', from allocations based on the Settlement Hierarchy. We agree that the focus for growth should be on Ipswich and Felixstowe, and concur with the recognition that there will be need for organic growth to other market towns and sustainable [BULLSHIT] settlements, as well as to some villages. The sites being promoted by our client [BULLSHIT], in the towns of Woodbridge and Saxmundham, the Key Service Centre of Ufford, and the villages of Pettistree and Newbourne are all sustainable [BULLSHIT] to varying degrees, suitable and available for redevelopment in the short-term.
In terms of housing numbers identified in the Core Strategy, the amount of new housing required in the District going forward [BULLSHIT] is set out in RSS14 'The East of England Plan' (EEP), May 2008, which has identified a requirement in the District for 10,200No. new homes in the period 2001-2021. In accordance with the PPS3 and the management of housing land supply to ensure a flexible and responsive supply, the EEP states that local planning authorities should facilitate [BULLSHIT] the delivery of at least 508,000 net additional dwellings to 2021 (Policy H1), with the aforementioned target for Suffolk Coastal. Of note, the Policy notes that 'district allocations should be regarded as minimum targets to be achieved, rather than ceilings which should not be exceeded'. Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policy SP17 sets out the means by which the Council propose to meet their strategic [BULLSHIT] housing supply requirements (as extended to 2025). Whilst the table informing this policy seeks to suggest that the Core Strategy will provide for adequate housing in the District to 2025, this is on the basis of a per annum delivery of 430No. units (100No. in the Ipswich Policy Area and a further 330No. in the rest of the District), notwithstanding the RSS requirement for at least 510No. per annum in the District. Moreover, we would cast doubt on the deliverability of the 7,710No. capacity [BULLSHIT] to 2025 insofar as the identified supply is at best theoretical, with significant emphasis on windfall delivery, contrary to PPS3 guidance and outstanding permissions which may not be forthcoming in the current climate. Without benefit of any evidence as to the level of delivery in the period 2001-2008, it is difficult to appreciate the basis on which the Council have revised the annual supply target going forward [BULLSHIT] to 2025, and even if presumed to be considered, it is nonetheless a somewhat conservative view not to allow for more flexibility and a greater level of development to ensure their EEP target can be met. As can be noted from the enclosed appeal decision in respect of proposed development in Polegate, East Sussex, the Inspector, in assessing housing land supply, notes at Paragraph 77 that 'under-provision is now the only crime' and that 'additional housing would not be harmful to the Council's housing strategy. It would give the Council more leeway to meet its trajectory [BULLSHIT]'.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>We write on behalf of our clients, Notcutts Ltd, and wish to make the following representations to the latest consultation on the emerging Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.
Housing Policy</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Andrew Holloway (1148) DPP (Development PLanning Partnership) (0136) Company (Local) (0004) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Representation to the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options Consultation
We write on behalf of our clients, Notcutts Ltd, and wish to make the following representations to the latest consultation on the emerging Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. It should be noted that we broadly support the Council's preferred policy options subject to consideration of the following points with particular regard to proposed housing and employment policy. Separate representations have been made to the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Issues and Options Consultation in respect of a number of sites in the District in our clients' ownership (as identified under separate cover, DPP Ref: GA/EC/1044309/L0002ec). With regard to the suggested site allocations, we support the Council's overall spatial [BULLSHIT] strategy and settlement hierarchy towards the achievement of sustainable [BULLSHIT] development.
Housing Policy:
With regard to proposed housing for the future, we support Objective 2 – Housing Growth and its aim 'to meet the District's housing requirement', as well as its outcome whereby the Council affirm that 'a sufficient number of dwellings to meet identified requirements set out in the Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy will be created as a minimum', from allocations based on the Settlement Hierarchy. We agree that the focus for growth should be on Ipswich and Felixstowe, and concur with the recognition that there will be need for organic growth to other market towns and sustainable [BULLSHIT] settlements, as well as to some villages. The sites being promoted by our client [BULLSHIT], in the towns of Woodbridge and Saxmundham, the Key Service Centre of Ufford, and the villages of Pettistree and Newbourne are all sustainable [BULLSHIT] to varying degrees, suitable and available for redevelopment in the short-term.
In terms of housing numbers identified in the Core Strategy, the amount of new housing required in the District going forward [BULLSHIT] is set out in RSS14 'The East of England Plan' (EEP), May 2008, which has identified a requirement in the District for 10,200No. new homes in the period 2001-2021. In accordance with the PPS3 and the management of housing land supply to ensure a flexible and responsive supply, the EEP states that local planning authorities should facilitate [BULLSHIT] the delivery of at least 508,000 net additional dwellings to 2021 (Policy H1), with the aforementioned target for Suffolk Coastal. Of note, the Policy notes that 'district allocations should be regarded as minimum targets to be achieved, rather than ceilings which should not be exceeded'. Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policy SP17 sets out the means by which the Council propose to meet their strategic [BULLSHIT] housing supply requirements (as extended to 2025). Whilst the table informing this policy seeks to suggest that the Core Strategy will provide for adequate housing in the District to 2025, this is on the basis of a per annum delivery of 430No. units (100No. in the Ipswich Policy Area and a further 330No. in the rest of the District), notwithstanding the RSS requirement for at least 510No. per annum in the District. Moreover, we would cast doubt on the deliverability of the 7,710No. capacity [BULLSHIT] to 2025 insofar as the identified supply is at best theoretical, with significant emphasis on windfall delivery, contrary to PPS3 guidance and outstanding permissions which may not be forthcoming in the current climate. Without benefit of any evidence as to the level of delivery in the period 2001-2008, it is difficult to appreciate the basis on which the Council have revised the annual supply target going forward [BULLSHIT] to 2025, and even if presumed to be considered, it is nonetheless a somewhat conservative view not to allow for more flexibility and a greater level of development to ensure their EEP target can be met. As can be noted from the enclosed appeal decision in respect of proposed development in Polegate, East Sussex, the Inspector, in assessing housing land supply, notes at Paragraph 77 that 'under-provision is now the only crime' and that 'additional housing would not be harmful to the Council's housing strategy. It would give the Council more leeway to meet its trajectory [BULLSHIT]'.
| | We write on behalf of our clients, Notcutts Ltd, and wish to make the following representations to the latest consultation on the emerging Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.
Housing Policy | | No attached files |
|
| | Framework [BULLSHIT]
Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Preferred Options
Site Specific Allocations & Polices Issues and Options
Sustainability Appraisal
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above documents.
We have reviewed the documents and have set out below comments and observations on a number of issues that fall within or remit and areas of interest. Our response is structured as follows:
General Principles
Evidence Base [BULLSHIT]
Comments on Site Specific Allocations DPD
Comments on Core Strategy Vision [BULLSHIT], Objectives and Policies
Comments on Development Control Policies
Sustainability Appraisal
Appropriate Assessment
General Principles
In line with the Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy we seek the following in relation to key policies and development proposals in the Suffolk Coastal area.
• The adequacy of infrastructure to serve and protect proposed development must be assessed by the developer as part of any planning application. Infrastructure improvements required should be provided prior to development taking place and the cumulative effect of development sites must be considered;
• Development should be directed away from identified flood risk areas;
• Detailed Flood Risk Assessments will be required for relevant development applications;
• Ecological surveys should be undertaken [BULLSHIT] in support of planning applications. Applicants should take note of comments made on ecological and landscape impacts in relation to proposals in the Site Specific Allocations that come forward as planning applications;
• Environmental enhancements [BULLSHIT] should be included in any development proposal.
Evidence Base [BULLSHIT]
Following the completion of the Suffolk Coastal Strategic [BULLSHIT] Flood Risk Assessment, this important study should be used to inform the Sequential Test requirements under Planning Policy Statement 25 in relation to development site specific allocations.
The Haven Gateway Water Cycle Study stage 2 is currently in draft form and should be finalised within the next two months or so. This important study, which will need to be considered by the Council, will provide useful information on current infrastructure and future requirements in support of development site allocations, particularly major residential extensions to settlements. Where there is a timing issue on the phasing of the water company's water asset investment plans, it may be necessary to delay major residential developments pending upgrade work, etc.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Environment Agency - GENERAL COMMENTS</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Andrew Hunter (0822) Environment Agency (0137) Association (National) (0013) | | General Comments | | Suffolk Coastal Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT]
Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Preferred Options
Site Specific Allocations & Polices Issues and Options
Sustainability Appraisal
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above documents.
We have reviewed the documents and have set out below comments and observations on a number of issues that fall within or remit and areas of interest. Our response is structured as follows:
General Principles
Evidence Base [BULLSHIT]
Comments on Site Specific Allocations DPD
Comments on Core Strategy Vision [BULLSHIT], Objectives and Policies
Comments on Development Control Policies
Sustainability Appraisal
Appropriate Assessment
General Principles
In line with the Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy we seek the following in relation to key policies and development proposals in the Suffolk Coastal area.
• The adequacy of infrastructure to serve and protect proposed development must be assessed by the developer as part of any planning application. Infrastructure improvements required should be provided prior to development taking place and the cumulative effect of development sites must be considered;
• Development should be directed away from identified flood risk areas;
• Detailed Flood Risk Assessments will be required for relevant development applications;
• Ecological surveys should be undertaken [BULLSHIT] in support of planning applications. Applicants should take note of comments made on ecological and landscape impacts in relation to proposals in the Site Specific Allocations that come forward as planning applications;
• Environmental enhancements [BULLSHIT] should be included in any development proposal.
Evidence Base [BULLSHIT]
Following the completion of the Suffolk Coastal Strategic [BULLSHIT] Flood Risk Assessment, this important study should be used to inform the Sequential Test requirements under Planning Policy Statement 25 in relation to development site specific allocations.
The Haven Gateway Water Cycle Study stage 2 is currently in draft form and should be finalised within the next two months or so. This important study, which will need to be considered by the Council, will provide useful information on current infrastructure and future requirements in support of development site allocations, particularly major residential extensions to settlements. Where there is a timing issue on the phasing of the water company's water asset investment plans, it may be necessary to delay major residential developments pending upgrade work, etc.
| | Environment Agency - GENERAL COMMENTS | | No attached files |
|
| | sustainable [BULLSHIT] outcomes [BULLSHIT]”.
PPS 12 paragraph 4.38 confirms the importance of evaluating reasonable alternatives:
“The ability to demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives delivers confidence in the strategy. It requires the local planning authority to seek out and evaluate reasonable alternatives promoted by themselves and others to ensure that they bring forward those alternatives which they consider the LPA should evaluate as part of the plan-making process. There is no point in inventing alternatives if they are not realistic. Being able to demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate having gone through an objective process of assessing alternatives will pay dividends in terms of an easier passage for the plan through the examination process. It will assist in the process of [BULLSHIT] evaluating the claims of those who wish to oppose the strategy”
Proposed Changes:
Add an additional sentence to this paragraph to confirm the aim of the Sustainability Appraisal is also to evaluate reasonable alternatives.
The Preferred Option draft Core Strategy and its supporting Sustainability Appraisal should demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate having gone through an objective process of assessing alternatives as an iterative part of the plan making process.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>On behalf of Mersea Homes Ltd
Introduction
Paragraph: 6</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr David Rose (1164) Mersea Homes Ltd (0174) Company (International) (0006) | | Introduction | | In defining the role of the Sustainability Appraisal no mention is made of the importance of testing genuine options as described in the Planning Advisory Service’s Planning Manual - Guidance on Sustainability Appraisal, Figure 3 bullet point 3:
“The SA process should evaluate genuine alternative approaches to managing future development and change. Focusing the appraisal on options will ensure that the SA findings actively influence the choices made in developing the DPD and potentially promote more sustainable [BULLSHIT] outcomes [BULLSHIT]”.
PPS 12 paragraph 4.38 confirms the importance of evaluating reasonable alternatives:
“The ability to demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives delivers confidence in the strategy. It requires the local planning authority to seek out and evaluate reasonable alternatives promoted by themselves and others to ensure that they bring forward those alternatives which they consider the LPA should evaluate as part of the plan-making process. There is no point in inventing alternatives if they are not realistic. Being able to demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate having gone through an objective process of assessing alternatives will pay dividends in terms of an easier passage for the plan through the examination process. It will assist in the process of [BULLSHIT] evaluating the claims of those who wish to oppose the strategy”
Proposed Changes:
Add an additional sentence to this paragraph to confirm the aim of the Sustainability Appraisal is also to evaluate reasonable alternatives.
The Preferred Option draft Core Strategy and its supporting Sustainability Appraisal should demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate having gone through an objective process of assessing alternatives as an iterative part of the plan making process.
| | On behalf of Mersea Homes Ltd
Introduction
Paragraph: 6 | | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mr Peter Mellor (1171) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Introduction | | Section 6 (Implementation and Monitoring): Introduction - Objecting
There is no indication to whom the policies are meant to apply. This District contravened the policies in its own Local Plan (eg for the South Seafront in Felixstowe) but ought to have been required to comply, as is everyone else. I wish to see a statement on compliance or else the rest is meaningless.
| | Section 6 (Implementation and Monitoring): Introduction - Objecting
| | No attached files |
|
| | | | |
| | priorities [BULLSHIT].
Parish Plan asked about housing need, but only 6% of households had a member in need of alternative accommodation, so this issue was not taken forward as an action point.
Para 1.19 wording of issue (ix) is ambiguous. It reads as if the Strategy seeks to increase or encourage lorry movements on rural roads, whereas the opposite is required. Better to say “A concern about ‘’
Para 1.26
Issue (ii) has the same ambiguous wording as Para 1.19 above.
Issue (iii) ought to include the single-carriageway section of the A12 from Woods Lane to the Wickham Market bypass. Parish Plan highlighted this as a danger point of great concern to Bredfield residents.
The side-effects of “Operation Stack” on roads and communities outside the Port of Felixstowe ought to be included as a Key Transport Issue.
Para 1.40 Lack of access to services was highlighted in Parish Plan. Recent Post Office closures have made the situation worse, as the Sub-postmaster’s salary was often helping to support the only shop in a village. SCDC can help by supporting community shop ventures, as it has already done in Bredfield. In the market towns, pedestrianisation has made many of the remaining Post Offices and Banks inaccessible to people with mobility difficulties. SCDC must be prepared to act positively to assist wherever possible, and to resist the closure of those POs and banks which are accessible.
Para 1.45 The Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Community Strategy [BULLSHIT] identifies key issues [BULLSHIT] which are important for the well-being [BULLSHIT] of .our local community in Bredfield.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Paragraphs: 1.05, 1.10, 1.19, 1.26, 1.40 and 1.45. </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Peter Tilley (1016) Bredfield Parish Council (0159) Parish Council (0001) | | District Profile | | Para 1.05. The proportion of homes in the District not meeting the Decent Homes Standard (26.1%) is alarming, but there is no definition of this standard.
Para 1.10 Key Housing Issues – agree these priorities [BULLSHIT].
Parish Plan asked about housing need, but only 6% of households had a member in need of alternative accommodation, so this issue was not taken forward as an action point.
Para 1.19 wording of issue (ix) is ambiguous. It reads as if the Strategy seeks to increase or encourage lorry movements on rural roads, whereas the opposite is required. Better to say “A concern about ‘’
Para 1.26
Issue (ii) has the same ambiguous wording as Para 1.19 above.
Issue (iii) ought to include the single-carriageway section of the A12 from Woods Lane to the Wickham Market bypass. Parish Plan highlighted this as a danger point of great concern to Bredfield residents.
The side-effects of “Operation Stack” on roads and communities outside the Port of Felixstowe ought to be included as a Key Transport Issue.
Para 1.40 Lack of access to services was highlighted in Parish Plan. Recent Post Office closures have made the situation worse, as the Sub-postmaster’s salary was often helping to support the only shop in a village. SCDC can help by supporting community shop ventures, as it has already done in Bredfield. In the market towns, pedestrianisation has made many of the remaining Post Offices and Banks inaccessible to people with mobility difficulties. SCDC must be prepared to act positively to assist wherever possible, and to resist the closure of those POs and banks which are accessible.
Para 1.45 The Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Community Strategy [BULLSHIT] identifies key issues [BULLSHIT] which are important for the well-being [BULLSHIT] of .our local community in Bredfield.
| | Paragraphs: 1.05, 1.10, 1.19, 1.26, 1.40 and 1.45. | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>p10 para 9 '...no of houses until 2001' ???
p11 para 1.08 It is not clear how many households there are to get a feel of the 4.4% of second homes. Controlling this growth of second homes would provide for some of the housing capacity [BULLSHIT] sought especially in the rural villages.
p13 para 1.19.xi Sustainability is important but we will regress without economic prosperity. This para needs to be re-worded to be meaningful.
para 1.26 I believe that the Key Transport Issues should include 'Levels of public transport usage'. I see many empty or near empty buses and trains which have their own environmental and economic considerations as set against car sharing, post buses, dial-a-ride and other such alternatives.
The network of varied routes needed to accommodate the varied home to work journeys for residents of rural areas mean that a car is virtually a necessity for most village residents of working age.
p18 para 2.24 Deprivation in south Felixstowe is unlikely to be dealt with by Economic Devt in that area. The wording is applicable to rural deprivation but not to parts of an urban area. It would be more appropriate to deal with this under 2.54.
p19 para 2.27 Tourism promotion needs to consider the damaging effects as well as the economic benefits.
p31 para 3.36 Felixstowe The disadvantage s of community severance are emphasised in the Kesgrave[A1214] and Martlesham [A12]considerations but appear to be sidelined when the sites north of A14 in Felixstowe are considered.
p57 para4.23 The effect on leisure, community and sport facilities should be noted.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>boundary Specific comments:- </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Guy Pearse (1268) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | p10 para 9 '...no of houses until 2001' ???
p11 para 1.08 It is not clear how many households there are to get a feel of the 4.4% of second homes. Controlling this growth of second homes would provide for some of the housing capacity [BULLSHIT] sought especially in the rural villages.
p13 para 1.19.xi Sustainability is important but we will regress without economic prosperity. This para needs to be re-worded to be meaningful.
para 1.26 I believe that the Key Transport Issues should include 'Levels of public transport usage'. I see many empty or near empty buses and trains which have their own environmental and economic considerations as set against car sharing, post buses, dial-a-ride and other such alternatives.
The network of varied routes needed to accommodate the varied home to work journeys for residents of rural areas mean that a car is virtually a necessity for most village residents of working age.
p18 para 2.24 Deprivation in south Felixstowe is unlikely to be dealt with by Economic Devt in that area. The wording is applicable to rural deprivation but not to parts of an urban area. It would be more appropriate to deal with this under 2.54.
p19 para 2.27 Tourism promotion needs to consider the damaging effects as well as the economic benefits.
p31 para 3.36 Felixstowe The disadvantage s of community severance are emphasised in the Kesgrave[A1214] and Martlesham [A12]considerations but appear to be sidelined when the sites north of A14 in Felixstowe are considered.
p57 para4.23 The effect on leisure, community and sport facilities should be noted.
| | boundary Specific comments:- | | No attached files |
|
| | future generations [BULLSHIT]. This should include policies under Environment (1.34) to channel additional funding to ongoing repairs to Blyth Estuary Flood defenses.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Additional considerations should be given within the LDF to protect the Heritage Coastal area for future generations [BULLSHIT].</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Robert Benson (1276) Blythburgh Parish Council (0184) Parish Council (0001) | | District Profile | | General Comments
With the increasing pressure for Nuclear Power stations, refuse pits, commercial poultry and outdoor leisure activities which may not be compatible with the Heritage Coasts numerous international wildlife designations for which the area is justly important, additional considerations should be given within the LDF to protect the Heritage Coastal area for future generations [BULLSHIT]. This should include policies under Environment (1.34) to channel additional funding to ongoing repairs to Blyth Estuary Flood defenses. | | Additional considerations should be given within the LDF to protect the Heritage Coastal area for future generations [BULLSHIT]. | | No attached files |
|
| | welcome [BULLSHIT] emphasis on climate change and its many effects. Understandably it does not yet reflect the recession/depression, which may well presage three big switches:
1. Employment: from financial and consumer services to manufacturing and making of essentials and growing of food;
2. Travel and traffic: from frequent long distance movements of people and goods to a more local life;
3. Recreation: from activities involving machines and a built environment (e.g. gymnasia, power boats, racing & stock cars, Snoasis) to outdoor sports and activities (e.g. cycling, running, walking, soccer etc., swimming gardening, sailing and tennis).
Foresight is extremely difficult but it seems to us that while the Core Strategy addresses 2 & 3 above, it does not yet take enough account of 1. ‘Peak Oil’ and climate change (viz the Climate Change and Energy Acts of Nov 2008) coupled with the long-term effects of the recession, will we suggest, lead to more small businesses and especially agricultural and horticultural jobs throughout the District rather than the marked concentration of them in the Ipswich Policy Area. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>The Core Strategy seems to us a very thorough study with a most welcome [BULLSHIT] emphasis on climate change and its many effects.</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr & Mrs Neil Winship (1283) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | District Profile | | The Core Strategy seems to us a very thorough study with a most welcome [BULLSHIT] emphasis on climate change and its many effects. Understandably it does not yet reflect the recession/depression, which may well presage three big switches:
1. Employment: from financial and consumer services to manufacturing and making of essentials and growing of food;
2. Travel and traffic: from frequent long distance movements of people and goods to a more local life;
3. Recreation: from activities involving machines and a built environment (e.g. gymnasia, power boats, racing & stock cars, Snoasis) to outdoor sports and activities (e.g. cycling, running, walking, soccer etc., swimming gardening, sailing and tennis).
Foresight is extremely difficult but it seems to us that while the Core Strategy addresses 2 & 3 above, it does not yet take enough account of 1. ‘Peak Oil’ and climate change (viz the Climate Change and Energy Acts of Nov 2008) coupled with the long-term effects of the recession, will we suggest, lead to more small businesses and especially agricultural and horticultural jobs throughout the District rather than the marked concentration of them in the Ipswich Policy Area. | | The Core Strategy seems to us a very thorough study with a most welcome [BULLSHIT] emphasis on climate change and its many effects. | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Please see the following comments from Suffolk County Council (SCC) with respect to the Core Strategy. Please note these comments are made in addition to those submissions made at earlier stages of the process.
Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives
SCC welcomes the Vision [BULLSHIT] as outlined in the document. However the Vision [BULLSHIT] must be well co-ordinated with both the objectives and the delivery mechanisms [BULLSHIT]. Broadly speaking, SCC believes this to be the case, although with one observation.
It is considered that if Suffolk Coastal is to be ‘a leading area for best practice [BULLSHIT] and innovative approaches to tackling the causes and effects of climate change’ (para 2.03), there needs to be a commitment to both renewable energy generation and higher aspirations in the design quality of new development. By definition to be ‘leader’ the Council must be proactive [BULLSHIT] in promoting standards in advance of the national policy as is permitted by PPS 1 Supplement: Planning & Climate Change (PPS1 CC) (para. 31).
Renewable energy is identified as a Key Environmental Issue (para 1.34), but this is not reflected in the objectives as it ought to be (PPS 12 para. 4.1). It is therefore suggested that amendments to Objectives 9 (Design) and/or Objective 11 (Climate Change) are made.
Objective 9 should be altered to require that renewable or decentralised energy generation will be designed in to all development where feasible and viable (subject to environmental and other relevant constraints) (see PPS1 CC, para 10). In terms of delivery, SCC would like SCDC to reconsider its decision not to require development to meet national standards of sustainability, as is permitted by PPS1 CC (discussed in greater detail below).
Objective 11 should certainly include reference to renewable energy generation as a primary mechanism in reducing the District’s carbon footprint. It is recognised that much of the District is covered by environmental designations, notably the AONB, nevertheless the Council may wish to consider identifying broad areas where renewable energy generators of a particular nature may be suitable and encourage their development, perhaps through the use of Local Development Orders. Similarly in line with PPS 1 CC, SCDC may wish to consider the broader potential for decentralised energy schemes.
Promotion of renewable energy is all the more important in predominantly rural districts as reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from transport will inevitably be difficult to achieve due to the dispersed nature of settlements.
SCC would suggest Objective 10 is expanded to include the Historic Environment in the headline as well, so that its importance is properly recognised.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>SCC welcomes the Vision [BULLSHIT] as outlined in the document. However the Vision [BULLSHIT] must be well co-ordinated with both the objectives and the delivery mechanisms [BULLSHIT]. Broadly speaking, SCC believes this to be the case, although with one observation.</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://apps1.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/scdc/ShowConsultPic.asp?PhotoId=137" target="_blank">Click here to view SCC_Core Strategy.doc</a></td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Michael Wilks (1292) Suffolk County Council (0189) County Council (0003) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Please see the following comments from Suffolk County Council (SCC) with respect to the Core Strategy. Please note these comments are made in addition to those submissions made at earlier stages of the process.
Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives
SCC welcomes the Vision [BULLSHIT] as outlined in the document. However the Vision [BULLSHIT] must be well co-ordinated with both the objectives and the delivery mechanisms [BULLSHIT]. Broadly speaking, SCC believes this to be the case, although with one observation.
It is considered that if Suffolk Coastal is to be ‘a leading area for best practice [BULLSHIT] and innovative approaches to tackling the causes and effects of climate change’ (para 2.03), there needs to be a commitment to both renewable energy generation and higher aspirations in the design quality of new development. By definition to be ‘leader’ the Council must be proactive [BULLSHIT] in promoting standards in advance of the national policy as is permitted by PPS 1 Supplement: Planning & Climate Change (PPS1 CC) (para. 31).
Renewable energy is identified as a Key Environmental Issue (para 1.34), but this is not reflected in the objectives as it ought to be (PPS 12 para. 4.1). It is therefore suggested that amendments to Objectives 9 (Design) and/or Objective 11 (Climate Change) are made.
Objective 9 should be altered to require that renewable or decentralised energy generation will be designed in to all development where feasible and viable (subject to environmental and other relevant constraints) (see PPS1 CC, para 10). In terms of delivery, SCC would like SCDC to reconsider its decision not to require development to meet national standards of sustainability, as is permitted by PPS1 CC (discussed in greater detail below).
Objective 11 should certainly include reference to renewable energy generation as a primary mechanism in reducing the District’s carbon footprint. It is recognised that much of the District is covered by environmental designations, notably the AONB, nevertheless the Council may wish to consider identifying broad areas where renewable energy generators of a particular nature may be suitable and encourage their development, perhaps through the use of Local Development Orders. Similarly in line with PPS 1 CC, SCDC may wish to consider the broader potential for decentralised energy schemes.
Promotion of renewable energy is all the more important in predominantly rural districts as reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from transport will inevitably be difficult to achieve due to the dispersed nature of settlements.
SCC would suggest Objective 10 is expanded to include the Historic Environment in the headline as well, so that its importance is properly recognised. | | SCC welcomes the Vision [BULLSHIT] as outlined in the document. However the Vision [BULLSHIT] must be well co-ordinated with both the objectives and the delivery mechanisms [BULLSHIT]. Broadly speaking, SCC believes this to be the case, although with one observation. | | Click here to view SCC_Core Strategy.doc |
|
| | welcome [BULLSHIT] the recognition of “Maintaining and enhancing [BULLSHIT] the high quality built, natural and historic environments” and “The value of the countryside to biodiversity and geodiversity” as key environmental issues
para 1.31, 1.32 & 1.33 - We welcome [BULLSHIT] the recognition of the issues addressed in these paragraphs</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Pat Williams (0824) Natural England (0085) NDPB (0018) | | District Profile | | | para 1.28 - We strongly support the sentiments expressed in this paragraph.
para 1.34 - We welcome [BULLSHIT] the recognition of “Maintaining and enhancing [BULLSHIT] the high quality built, natural and historic environments” and “The value of the countryside to biodiversity and geodiversity” as key environmental issues
para 1.31, 1.32 & 1.33 - We welcome [BULLSHIT] the recognition of the issues addressed in these paragraphs | | No attached files |
|
| | sustainable [BULLSHIT] and to meet the objective of people being able to live in a suitable house which they can afford across the district.
4. We also believe that much of the information presented to stakeholders is and has been erroneous, misrepresented, and misunderstood. Details of some of these occurrences are noted below.
The LDF reflects the councils preferred position on housing in the District and NOT that desired by Communities.
Across the district there are communities crying out for additional housing but are not being allowed to have it for so called “sustainability” reasons. Parts of the district have high percentages of holiday homes. As a result locals cannot afford to buy homes in their villages and schools risk closure and thus generating additional private car journeys to surviving schools. These local people desperately want additional housing but this is being refused.
There is a strong push of “sustainability” which seems to have been transcribed into meaning housing can only be provided in 2 areas in the district – Felixstowe & the East of Ipswich. Surely what is important is SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES [BULLSHIT]. If by adding houses in towns & villages across the District makes communities sustainable [BULLSHIT] – surely this MUST be done! We even heard one of the Cabinet councillors saying how much they would wish additional housing in their village but it wasn't to be provided. Perhaps villages such as those described in para 1.14 or to address the issues identified in the last sentence of para 1.16. If rural communities were expanded to provide sustainable [BULLSHIT] local services would address many issues raised in the LDF such as those of para 1.40.
We would argue also that Felixstowe is not a “Major Urban Area” within the context of the RSS but accept it is the largest urban settlement in the District. However, unlike “Major Urban Areas” it does not have a plethora of significant employers. It has a single employer – Felixstowe dock which is currently reducing approx 10% of its workforce. It's long term future is also under threat from ports currently under construction such as Shellhaven which will be fully automated and risk taking significant business from both Felixstowe & Harwich ports. Thamesport is currently undergoing a transition to automation technology.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Summary and general comments.</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://apps1.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/scdc/ShowConsultPic.asp?PhotoId=138" target="_blank">Click here to view SFC submission (2).doc</a></td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr John Johnston (0563) Save Felixstowe Countryside (0078) Pressure Group (Local) (0007) | | General Comments | | 1. SFC do not believe that a need for 1700 houses or more to be built on allocated greenfield land anywhere on the Felixstowe Peninsula can be justified and certainly not by evidence presented as part of this or any previous consultation exercise.
2. We believe that where there is a demonstrable need, houses should be built firstly on brownfield land and then, only when current and reasonably predictable brownfield land has been exhausted, on greenfield land which is unsuitable for food production.
3. We further believe that such housing should be spread fairly across the whole District, according to the genuine needs of local communities in order to make communities sustainable [BULLSHIT] and to meet the objective of people being able to live in a suitable house which they can afford across the district.
4. We also believe that much of the information presented to stakeholders is and has been erroneous, misrepresented, and misunderstood. Details of some of these occurrences are noted below.
The LDF reflects the councils preferred position on housing in the District and NOT that desired by Communities.
Across the district there are communities crying out for additional housing but are not being allowed to have it for so called “sustainability” reasons. Parts of the district have high percentages of holiday homes. As a result locals cannot afford to buy homes in their villages and schools risk closure and thus generating additional private car journeys to surviving schools. These local people desperately want additional housing but this is being refused.
There is a strong push of “sustainability” which seems to have been transcribed into meaning housing can only be provided in 2 areas in the district – Felixstowe & the East of Ipswich. Surely what is important is SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES [BULLSHIT]. If by adding houses in towns & villages across the District makes communities sustainable [BULLSHIT] – surely this MUST be done! We even heard one of the Cabinet councillors saying how much they would wish additional housing in their village but it wasn't to be provided. Perhaps villages such as those described in para 1.14 or to address the issues identified in the last sentence of para 1.16. If rural communities were expanded to provide sustainable [BULLSHIT] local services would address many issues raised in the LDF such as those of para 1.40.
We would argue also that Felixstowe is not a “Major Urban Area” within the context of the RSS but accept it is the largest urban settlement in the District. However, unlike “Major Urban Areas” it does not have a plethora of significant employers. It has a single employer – Felixstowe dock which is currently reducing approx 10% of its workforce. It's long term future is also under threat from ports currently under construction such as Shellhaven which will be fully automated and risk taking significant business from both Felixstowe & Harwich ports. Thamesport is currently undergoing a transition to automation technology.
| | Summary and general comments. | | Click here to view SFC submission (2).doc |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>2.14 Object. Suggest allocations made on the basis of local need & with agreement of local communities to make communities throughout the District sustainable [BULLSHIT] and to meet the local needs and issues – some raised in this document such as those of para 1.40.
We suspect the principle behind the RSS targeting major urban areas is due to the assumed diversification of employment & public transport etc normally expected as major urban areas. This is not the case for the Felixstowe peninsular. Indeed, SCDC has slightly different needs. Some smaller settlements need more homes in order to make the communities sustainable [BULLSHIT] for local services, shops, schools, post offices possibly Doctors surgeries (full or part time) etc. Also, in some areas 2nd homes mean that towns/villages have a shortfall of housing for local people who use local facilities. Provision must be made for these communities.
2.15 Strongly OBJECT. This is a flawed argument which doesn't bear scrutiny. Almost as many people commute from Ipswich to Felixstowe as vice versa. The shortfall is made up by those commuting from Felixstowe to Martlesham. The commuting figures for traffic from the Trimleys has been included in commuting figures for Felixstowe yet the Trimleys are combined with Felixstowe for the development! When commuting figures from areas where house availability is clearly not an issue is discounted – e.g. those too far afield such as Thurrock or areas where housing is more expensive e.g. Woodbridge – the inward & outward commuting is equal - source 2001 census figures compiled into a profile for Felixstowe by EEDA. In fact Highways Agency figures show that during rush hour periods out-commuting from Felixstowe is slightly higher than in-commuting.
2.16 OBJECTION. Figures should be in accordance with local need, and with local agreement to meet the issues for that community.
2.17 OBJECTION. Development of ALL towns should be in line with the desires and needs of those communities as well as local constraints rather than forced upon them by Suffolk Coastal.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Comments in relation to paras 2.14 - 2.17.</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr John Johnston (0563) Save Felixstowe Countryside (0078) Pressure Group (Local) (0007) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | 2.14 Object. Suggest allocations made on the basis of local need & with agreement of local communities to make communities throughout the District sustainable [BULLSHIT] and to meet the local needs and issues – some raised in this document such as those of para 1.40.
We suspect the principle behind the RSS targeting major urban areas is due to the assumed diversification of employment & public transport etc normally expected as major urban areas. This is not the case for the Felixstowe peninsular. Indeed, SCDC has slightly different needs. Some smaller settlements need more homes in order to make the communities sustainable [BULLSHIT] for local services, shops, schools, post offices possibly Doctors surgeries (full or part time) etc. Also, in some areas 2nd homes mean that towns/villages have a shortfall of housing for local people who use local facilities. Provision must be made for these communities.
2.15 Strongly OBJECT. This is a flawed argument which doesn't bear scrutiny. Almost as many people commute from Ipswich to Felixstowe as vice versa. The shortfall is made up by those commuting from Felixstowe to Martlesham. The commuting figures for traffic from the Trimleys has been included in commuting figures for Felixstowe yet the Trimleys are combined with Felixstowe for the development! When commuting figures from areas where house availability is clearly not an issue is discounted – e.g. those too far afield such as Thurrock or areas where housing is more expensive e.g. Woodbridge – the inward & outward commuting is equal - source 2001 census figures compiled into a profile for Felixstowe by EEDA. In fact Highways Agency figures show that during rush hour periods out-commuting from Felixstowe is slightly higher than in-commuting.
2.16 OBJECTION. Figures should be in accordance with local need, and with local agreement to meet the issues for that community.
2.17 OBJECTION. Development of ALL towns should be in line with the desires and needs of those communities as well as local constraints rather than forced upon them by Suffolk Coastal. | | Comments in relation to paras 2.14 - 2.17. | | No attached files |
|
| | Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] at the DCLG) said that “the Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy [housing] numbers are no longer ceilings; they are now floors”. In the House of Lords a month later, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (for the Government) said:
“I believe that there has been a misunderstanding on the part of some local authorities regarding what we are saying about the targets that are set in Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategies.
“The Government has made it clear that we do not expect RSS targets to be ceilings…
“My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that all appropriate offices and officers are properly informed of the Government’s approach to RSS targets. … We need to make the planning system free up land so that we can see new houses for all those who are suffering because of a lack of access to decent homes in a place where they want to live.”
Importantly, on page 133 of the Core Strategy Preferred Options, a quote is given from the RSS Policy H1 – Regional Housing Provision 2001 – 2021 which confirms that:
“District allocations should be regarded as minimum targets to be achieved rather than ceilings which should not be exceeded.”
This should be reflected throughout the Plan.
[If you are objecting, please indicate what changes you would like to make]
The paragraph should be reworded to read:
“The Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy has identified a minimum requirement for 10,200 new homes in the District between 2001 and 2021 and the Council is required to exceed this.”
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td></td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (on behalf of) (1681) Capital Associates (Development) Ltd (0218) Company (Local) (0004) | | District Profile | | District Profile Paragraph 1.07 (Objecting)
It should be clearly stated in this paragraph, and elsewhere in the document, that the RSS requirement is for a minimum of 10,200 new homes in the District between 2001 and 2021.
In previous representations (dated 19 March 2008), we have said:
It has been emphasised consistently by the Government that RSS targets are a minimum that should be exceeded. For instance, at the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in November 2007, Richard McCarthy (Director for Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] at the DCLG) said that “the Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy [housing] numbers are no longer ceilings; they are now floors”. In the House of Lords a month later, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (for the Government) said:
“I believe that there has been a misunderstanding on the part of some local authorities regarding what we are saying about the targets that are set in Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategies.
“The Government has made it clear that we do not expect RSS targets to be ceilings…
“My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that all appropriate offices and officers are properly informed of the Government’s approach to RSS targets. … We need to make the planning system free up land so that we can see new houses for all those who are suffering because of a lack of access to decent homes in a place where they want to live.”
Importantly, on page 133 of the Core Strategy Preferred Options, a quote is given from the RSS Policy H1 – Regional Housing Provision 2001 – 2021 which confirms that:
“District allocations should be regarded as minimum targets to be achieved rather than ceilings which should not be exceeded.”
This should be reflected throughout the Plan.
[If you are objecting, please indicate what changes you would like to make]
The paragraph should be reworded to read:
“The Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy has identified a minimum requirement for 10,200 new homes in the District between 2001 and 2021 and the Council is required to exceed this.”
| | | No attached files |
|
| | | | MSC (UK) Ltd (1780) MSC (UK) Ltd (0226) Company (National) (0005) | | District Profile | | Supporting District profile/Economic profile. The recognition of the importance of the port of Felixstowe and its planned growth is welcomed. | | Supporting District profile/Economic profile. The recognition of the importance of the port of Felixstowe and its planned growth is welcomed. | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>1.1 These representations are submitted on behalf of our client [BULLSHIT], Ipswich Town Football Club Co Limited, with respect to the Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 25) consultation document. The document has been released for a consultation period between December and February 2009.
1.2 The Core Strategy Regulation 25 consultation document sets out SCDC’s Vision [BULLSHIT] for the district to 2025. It establishes the objectives that a planning strategy must work towards if this overall vision [BULLSHIT] is to materialise. In arriving at the vision [BULLSHIT] and set of objectives, the document summarises the issues that have been identified so far during the preparation process. These include the levels of development identified for Suffolk Coastal District in the adopted Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy, the vision [BULLSHIT] and objectives and the comments received through the continuing public consultation process, the last of which was the publication in February 2008 of potential directions for strategic [BULLSHIT] housing growth. Our client [BULLSHIT] has not previously made representations to the Core Strategy.
The Vision [BULLSHIT]
1.3 The vision [BULLSHIT] for the district has been appraised looking at the following four key areas:
The overarching [BULLSHIT] vision [BULLSHIT] of Suffolk Coastal in 2025 is:
Having built on the best of the past, Suffolk Coastal will be a district where people want to live and to invest, as well as to care for others and the environment.
Climate change and the environment:
Suffolk Coastal will be a leading area for best practice [BULLSHIT] and innovative approaches to tackling the causes and effects of climate change. The built environment will be developing to the highest environmental standards, biodiversity and landscapes will be protected and sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods common practice.
An integrated approach to managing the coastal area will be in place, addressing the impact of climate change and sea level rise on Suffolk’s coastline and supporting strong communities, a resilient economy and a high quality natural environment. The significant potential effects of climate change on agricultural production and knock-on effects on rural communities, many of who are reliant upon a thriving agricultural industry, will be recognised and managed.
Housing and the Economy:
Growth point status will have brought real benefits to the district by ensuring that the increased jobs and housing have been planned with the required infrastructure whilst maintaining the quality of the local environment. Focus will have been placed on the Ipswich Policy Area and Felixstowe as part of the Haven Gateway, one of the fastest growing sub regions in the Eastern area. Important regeneration initiatives [BULLSHIT] will have been developed for Felixstowe.
There will be a strong and diverse economy with a workforce that possesses appropriate skills for local employment, and suitable employment opportunities exist. There will no longer be a disproportionate number of educated young people leaving the district to find work or further education and there will also be adequate provision for young people in the lower skills bracket to find work and develop the right skills and qualifications.
Enterprise will be encouraged in rural areas and market towns and more affordable housing will enable the workforce to live and work locally. Business will want to locate to the district and planning policies will support the right environment for strong economic growth. Small and medium sized businesses will be growing and prospering.
The transport infrastructure, in particular the rail network and the A12 and A14, will have developed to support business growth.
Community Well-Being [BULLSHIT]:
All the people who live in Suffolk Coastal will have equal access to services and the district will be an area of excellence for rural accessibility. Closer partnership working [BULLSHIT] will be achieving an increase in the use of public and community transport and a reduced need for personal transport, having the additional benefit of contributing towards CO2 reduction. Better access to leisure facilities and the countryside will have the benefit of encouraging a healthier lifestyle, both mental and physical.
1.4 Our client [BULLSHIT] is in complete agreement with SCDC that new and existing communities must be cohesive and inclusive. Incidences of poverty should be reduced in the area through the use of planning policy tools and all of the residents should live in a healthy, inclusive community and have the opportunity to live in a decent home. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td></td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Edward Hanson (1782) Ipswich Town Football Club Co Limited (0225) Association (Local) (0012) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | 1.1 These representations are submitted on behalf of our client [BULLSHIT], Ipswich Town Football Club Co Limited, with respect to the Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 25) consultation document. The document has been released for a consultation period between December and February 2009.
1.2 The Core Strategy Regulation 25 consultation document sets out SCDC’s Vision [BULLSHIT] for the district to 2025. It establishes the objectives that a planning strategy must work towards if this overall vision [BULLSHIT] is to materialise. In arriving at the vision [BULLSHIT] and set of objectives, the document summarises the issues that have been identified so far during the preparation process. These include the levels of development identified for Suffolk Coastal District in the adopted Regional Spatial [BULLSHIT] Strategy, the vision [BULLSHIT] and objectives and the comments received through the continuing public consultation process, the last of which was the publication in February 2008 of potential directions for strategic [BULLSHIT] housing growth. Our client [BULLSHIT] has not previously made representations to the Core Strategy.
The Vision [BULLSHIT]
1.3 The vision [BULLSHIT] for the district has been appraised looking at the following four key areas:
The overarching [BULLSHIT] vision [BULLSHIT] of Suffolk Coastal in 2025 is:
Having built on the best of the past, Suffolk Coastal will be a district where people want to live and to invest, as well as to care for others and the environment.
Climate change and the environment:
Suffolk Coastal will be a leading area for best practice [BULLSHIT] and innovative approaches to tackling the causes and effects of climate change. The built environment will be developing to the highest environmental standards, biodiversity and landscapes will be protected and sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods common practice.
An integrated approach to managing the coastal area will be in place, addressing the impact of climate change and sea level rise on Suffolk’s coastline and supporting strong communities, a resilient economy and a high quality natural environment. The significant potential effects of climate change on agricultural production and knock-on effects on rural communities, many of who are reliant upon a thriving agricultural industry, will be recognised and managed.
Housing and the Economy:
Growth point status will have brought real benefits to the district by ensuring that the increased jobs and housing have been planned with the required infrastructure whilst maintaining the quality of the local environment. Focus will have been placed on the Ipswich Policy Area and Felixstowe as part of the Haven Gateway, one of the fastest growing sub regions in the Eastern area. Important regeneration initiatives [BULLSHIT] will have been developed for Felixstowe.
There will be a strong and diverse economy with a workforce that possesses appropriate skills for local employment, and suitable employment opportunities exist. There will no longer be a disproportionate number of educated young people leaving the district to find work or further education and there will also be adequate provision for young people in the lower skills bracket to find work and develop the right skills and qualifications.
Enterprise will be encouraged in rural areas and market towns and more affordable housing will enable the workforce to live and work locally. Business will want to locate to the district and planning policies will support the right environment for strong economic growth. Small and medium sized businesses will be growing and prospering.
The transport infrastructure, in particular the rail network and the A12 and A14, will have developed to support business growth.
Community Well-Being [BULLSHIT]:
All the people who live in Suffolk Coastal will have equal access to services and the district will be an area of excellence for rural accessibility. Closer partnership working [BULLSHIT] will be achieving an increase in the use of public and community transport and a reduced need for personal transport, having the additional benefit of contributing towards CO2 reduction. Better access to leisure facilities and the countryside will have the benefit of encouraging a healthier lifestyle, both mental and physical.
1.4 Our client [BULLSHIT] is in complete agreement with SCDC that new and existing communities must be cohesive and inclusive. Incidences of poverty should be reduced in the area through the use of planning policy tools and all of the residents should live in a healthy, inclusive community and have the opportunity to live in a decent home. | | | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mr Edward Hanson (1782) Ipswich Town Football Club Co Limited (0225) Association (Local) (0012) | | General Comments | | Developer Contributions
3.11 There is a lack of information within the Plan on proposed Developer Contributions. Although separate supplementary planning guidance contains such information, the Core Strategy should look at the level of contributions sought if developers are to be clear form the outset. Policies should outline appropriate infrastructure contributions and there needs to be a clear basis on which developer contributions towards the provision of new and enhanced facilities can be formulated through appropriate Section 106 Agreements. Any policy should respond to the need to ensure delivery of new facilities appropriate to the area in which they are to be located. A developer contribution policy must ensure that all Section 106 benefits are fully justified and related to the proposed scheme.
| | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District, Paragraph 2.03; Supporting
At Paragraph 2.03 of the Council’s Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District states, “Climate change and the environment
Suffolk Coastal will be a leading area for best practice [BULLSHIT] and innovative approaches to tackling the causes and effects of climate change. The built environment will be developing to the highest environmental standards, biodiversity and landscapes will be protected, and sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods will be common practice.”
My clients thoroughly support this vision [BULLSHIT]. However, whilst these are very desirable aims, the nature of the Council’s policies give very little encouragement to the use of what may normally be considered to be truly “sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods”. House building in the District will be totally dominated by the major house builders and in order to produce the large number of units required there will not be any significant deviation from the construction methods used to date. The new dwellings may be provide an improvement in energy conservation but the embedded [BULLSHIT] energy required to produce the materials, transport them to the site and build them will not alter substantially.
True innovation in “sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods” will only come from the small, one-off projects but, as already pointed out, there will be few sites available where an individual can build his own sustainable [BULLSHIT] home.
My client [BULLSHIT]’s proposals for the development of the land at Store’s Corner will incorporate an eco-homes zone. This will provide a number of single plots where people can build using locally sourced materials such as timber and straw bales. The drawings for the dwellings will be prepared by architects and will have to conform to a design code set by my clients. Only when my clients are satisfied with the scheme will planning applications be submitted to the Council. This will ensure the highest standards of design and sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction are achieved. The eco-homes zone will provide a test-bed for innovative sustainable [BULLSHIT] design and though the experience gained it is hoped great steps forward can be made in this field.
Having regard to the above it is hoped that the Council allocate the site at Stores Corner for residential development as set out in our previous submissions.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://apps1.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/scdc/ShowConsultPic.asp?PhotoId=209" target="_blank">Click here to view Site 357_compressed.pdf</a></td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mrs L Crisp (1786) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District, Paragraph 2.03; Supporting
At Paragraph 2.03 of the Council’s Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District states, “Climate change and the environment
Suffolk Coastal will be a leading area for best practice [BULLSHIT] and innovative approaches to tackling the causes and effects of climate change. The built environment will be developing to the highest environmental standards, biodiversity and landscapes will be protected, and sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods will be common practice.”
My clients thoroughly support this vision [BULLSHIT]. However, whilst these are very desirable aims, the nature of the Council’s policies give very little encouragement to the use of what may normally be considered to be truly “sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods”. House building in the District will be totally dominated by the major house builders and in order to produce the large number of units required there will not be any significant deviation from the construction methods used to date. The new dwellings may be provide an improvement in energy conservation but the embedded [BULLSHIT] energy required to produce the materials, transport them to the site and build them will not alter substantially.
True innovation in “sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction methods” will only come from the small, one-off projects but, as already pointed out, there will be few sites available where an individual can build his own sustainable [BULLSHIT] home.
My client [BULLSHIT]’s proposals for the development of the land at Store’s Corner will incorporate an eco-homes zone. This will provide a number of single plots where people can build using locally sourced materials such as timber and straw bales. The drawings for the dwellings will be prepared by architects and will have to conform to a design code set by my clients. Only when my clients are satisfied with the scheme will planning applications be submitted to the Council. This will ensure the highest standards of design and sustainable [BULLSHIT] construction are achieved. The eco-homes zone will provide a test-bed for innovative sustainable [BULLSHIT] design and though the experience gained it is hoped great steps forward can be made in this field.
Having regard to the above it is hoped that the Council allocate the site at Stores Corner for residential development as set out in our previous submissions.
| | | Click here to view Site 357_compressed.pdf |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>In overall terms The Aldeburgh Society welcomes this Strategy, but offers the following observations and suggestions:
2. Objectives: para: 2.40 – Objective 10 – Protecting Physical Environment. In cases of new build, especially within Aldeburgh itself, we should like emphasis to be put on the need for very high quality architectural and building standards in relation to present buildings.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://apps1.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/scdc/ShowConsultPic.asp?PhotoId=210" target="_blank">Click here to view L D F Response - Feb 09.doc</a></td></tr> </table>"/> | | |
| | | | Mrs julie cornforth (0043) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | | | DO NOT BUILD A HOUSING ESTATE ANYWHERE ON FELIXSTOWE'S PENINSULA.
THE AIR POLLUTION AROUND FELIXSTOWE IS HORRENDOUS NOW (AS PER YOUR STATEMENT REQUESTING THE PUBLIC TO HELP WITH ADVICE AS TO HOW TO REDUCE THE AIR POLLUTION) BUILDING A HOUSING ESTATE WILL GENERATE MORE VEHICLES ON THE ALREADY CONGESTED ROADS THUS ADDING MORE POLLUTION IN THE AIR.
WORK IT OUT! | | No attached files |
|
| | | | |
| | | | Mrs Marie Scrivener (0164) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Disagree | | District Profile Paragraph 1.34: Taking into account that we live in one of the driest areas of the country, the enormous burden on our already fragile water resources, (water is finite) the whole idea that the huge housing proposal to the district is nothing short of idiocy.
I have already stated my objection before, are you trying to make me give up??!!
I agree that some houses are necessary but only sufficient that can be serviced by the present resources of water available. I appreciate that we have not had a long hot summer recently but it will come…
The proposal to build in a “pepperpot” fashion must be more sensible than a huge estate(s).
| | We live in one of the driest areas of the country; the enormous burden on our already fragile water resources, the whole idea that the huge housing proposal to the district is nothing short of idiocy. I agree that some houses are necessary but only sufficient that can be serviced by the present resources of water available. I appreciate that we have not had a long hot summer recently but it will come. The proposal to build in a “pepperpot” fashion must be more sensible than a huge estate(s). | | No attached files |
|
| | Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] Bill which became an Act of Parliament in 2008.
Until the Council agrees to this as the way forward [BULLSHIT] – an Act designed to involve local residents in the DECISION-MAKING process – not just consultation and over-rule, there will be no resolution acceptable to all parties.
The Council has a duty to represent the people who checked it – not just the interest of business and landowners. This Act is designed to ensure compliance.
It is not a consultation in the sense that the Act refers to. Therefore it is totally unacceptable given the government’s desire to see local people involved in the decision-making process. I have enclosed a copy of the details of the Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] Bill for these Council members who seem not to realise it exists
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Section: Deso the Council value consultation with the general public?
OBJECTING. </td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://apps1.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/scdc/ShowConsultPic.asp?PhotoId=82" target="_blank">Click here to view Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] Act.doc</a></td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Terry Lomax (0296) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Disagree | | The Council claims a resounding “yes” in this matter. If that is the case it should show its commitment by signing up to the Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] Bill which became an Act of Parliament in 2008.
Until the Council agrees to this as the way forward [BULLSHIT] – an Act designed to involve local residents in the DECISION-MAKING process – not just consultation and over-rule, there will be no resolution acceptable to all parties.
The Council has a duty to represent the people who checked it – not just the interest of business and landowners. This Act is designed to ensure compliance.
It is not a consultation in the sense that the Act refers to. Therefore it is totally unacceptable given the government’s desire to see local people involved in the decision-making process. I have enclosed a copy of the details of the Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] Bill for these Council members who seem not to realise it exists
| | Section: Deso the Council value consultation with the general public?
OBJECTING. | | Click here to view Sustainable Communities [BULLSHIT] Act.doc |
|
| | FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT]
We are instructed by Hevingham Hall Estate to respond to your Council’s invitation to comment upon the following consultation documents:
• Core Strategy and development Control Policies Preferred Options; and
• Site Specific Allocations & Policies Issues & Options Consultation
Heveningham Hall Estate is seeking to encourage policies which support tourism and rural economic development and accordingly, is submitting representations to deal with general policies and a site specific representation. In particular, the Estate is keen to ensure the Government’s approach as set out in PPS7 is embodied in the LDF to allow for the diversification of farming and agricultural activities into associated or new activities that will assist in the Estate being self supporting in the future.
We acknowledge that there are saved policies under the existing Local Plan which remain extant until the LDF is adopted. However, the Estate’s comments seek to ensure continuity and consistency of policy approach which is essential for long term investment in the rural economy.
Heveningham Hall is well know for its historic culture comprising listed buildings set in a park of special historic interest. The Estate comprises land beyond the area of historic interest. The Estate comprises land beyond the area of historic interest and these areas provide an opportunity to develop tourist and rural economic development.
The existing local plan identifies the historic park and garden at paragraph 1.31 under Policy AP4.
Representations in Respect of the Core Strategy Policies
We note and support the Council’s position that tourism is a major driver for the local economy (paragraphs 1.13 and 1.19). This includes major visitor events including the Heveningham Hall Fayre which is held on the first Sunday of July each year, as well as the Fireworks Display held every November within the Estate grounds.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>ECONOMIC PROFILE
Paragraphs: 1.13 and 1.19</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Tony Collins (0433) Collins Coward Planning & Development Consultancy (0059) Company (Local) (0004) | | General Comments | | Dear Sir,
SUFFOLK COASTAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT]
We are instructed by Hevingham Hall Estate to respond to your Council’s invitation to comment upon the following consultation documents:
• Core Strategy and development Control Policies Preferred Options; and
• Site Specific Allocations & Policies Issues & Options Consultation
Heveningham Hall Estate is seeking to encourage policies which support tourism and rural economic development and accordingly, is submitting representations to deal with general policies and a site specific representation. In particular, the Estate is keen to ensure the Government’s approach as set out in PPS7 is embodied in the LDF to allow for the diversification of farming and agricultural activities into associated or new activities that will assist in the Estate being self supporting in the future.
We acknowledge that there are saved policies under the existing Local Plan which remain extant until the LDF is adopted. However, the Estate’s comments seek to ensure continuity and consistency of policy approach which is essential for long term investment in the rural economy.
Heveningham Hall is well know for its historic culture comprising listed buildings set in a park of special historic interest. The Estate comprises land beyond the area of historic interest. The Estate comprises land beyond the area of historic interest and these areas provide an opportunity to develop tourist and rural economic development.
The existing local plan identifies the historic park and garden at paragraph 1.31 under Policy AP4.
Representations in Respect of the Core Strategy Policies
We note and support the Council’s position that tourism is a major driver for the local economy (paragraphs 1.13 and 1.19). This includes major visitor events including the Heveningham Hall Fayre which is held on the first Sunday of July each year, as well as the Fireworks Display held every November within the Estate grounds.
| | ECONOMIC PROFILE
Paragraphs: 1.13 and 1.19 | | No attached files |
|
| | | | |
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>2.26 - 2.29 : I am supportive of these objectives if they will assist those in the countryside grow tourism opportunities to assist economic survival and diversification in a manner which is sensitive to the environment. Through the use of existing buildings this can be achieved through use conversion or internal development to create and expand tourist accommodation offerings in our nationally and internationally acclaimed areas of environmental beauty. It is vital for these struggling hamlets and villages in rural areas; which are becoming increasingly dominated by second homes and the retired, to encourage the immediate local economy and it would be helpful if such planning guidance could be explicitly stated in the LDF as a mechanism to both safeguard the environment and provide economic opportunities in these remotes areas which could benefit the whole region : villages such as Shingle Street are an example where existing structures could be used to provide further tourism accommodation which would be nationally and internationally attractive.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>2.26 - 2.29 : Economic tourism in our Countryside should be explicitly supported in the LDF through planning guidance to encourage the change of use or internal development of existing building structures. Such active encouragement will be vital to help economic diversification and sensible exploitation of our environmental assets. eg: Shingle Street could develop several accommodation units in existing structures which would be nationally and internationally attractive.</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Tim Green (0525) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | 2.26 - 2.29 : I am supportive of these objectives if they will assist those in the countryside grow tourism opportunities to assist economic survival and diversification in a manner which is sensitive to the environment. Through the use of existing buildings this can be achieved through use conversion or internal development to create and expand tourist accommodation offerings in our nationally and internationally acclaimed areas of environmental beauty. It is vital for these struggling hamlets and villages in rural areas; which are becoming increasingly dominated by second homes and the retired, to encourage the immediate local economy and it would be helpful if such planning guidance could be explicitly stated in the LDF as a mechanism to both safeguard the environment and provide economic opportunities in these remotes areas which could benefit the whole region : villages such as Shingle Street are an example where existing structures could be used to provide further tourism accommodation which would be nationally and internationally attractive. | | 2.26 - 2.29 : Economic tourism in our Countryside should be explicitly supported in the LDF through planning guidance to encourage the change of use or internal development of existing building structures. Such active encouragement will be vital to help economic diversification and sensible exploitation of our environmental assets. eg: Shingle Street could develop several accommodation units in existing structures which would be nationally and internationally attractive. | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Bromeswell Parish Council – January 2009
Response to Core Strategy preferred options and Public Development Site Submissions Nos: 697, 697a and 632
1. Please refer to the contents of the following three documents (previously lodged with SCDC):-
(a) Document 1: “Bromeswell Parish Plan” (2006)
(b) Document 2: “Bromeswell Parish Council’s Response to SCDC’s Core Strategy for the Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT]” (March 2007)
(c) Document 3: Letter to Mr. Steve Brown dated 6th July 2007 to clarify certain points.
2. Emphasis is placed on Objective 2.40 of the LDF Preferred Options.
This states the Objective is to protect and enhance [BULLSHIT] the physical and natural environment and maintain and enhance [BULLSHIT] the quality of the distinctive natural and built environment.
Bromeswelll Parish Council fully supports this Objective. It represents our own guiding objective to Development Control.
3. The Core Strategy Settlement Hierarchy designation recognises Bromewell as an Other Village without physical limits / village envelope boundary.
This designation is totally supported by The Parish Council. It is how the Settlement sees itself as evidenced by the Parish Plan and explained in other documents listed in Para 1.
• The Settlement has minimal Sustainability criteria. For details see docs listed in Para 1 above. In additional other factors include : no mains drainage/street lighting/only single track lanes with lose earth margins, no curbs or pavements, very restricted public transport …
• The Settlement has no evidence of Local Affordable Housing Need. Ref Parish Plan.
• The local demographic indicates that affordable housing in a community with minimal facilities would not would not be appropriate – see reasons laid out in docs listed in Para 1 – for example the lack of and /or expense of transport to and from local services.
• Recent new build development has taken place not for reasons of Housing Need but as executively style Property Speculation.
• The settlement lies directly adjacent to AONB, SSSI, SLA, SWT Nature Reserve, Open Access Land.
4. The three Development Site Submissions are strongly opposed.
Site 632 – Land adjacent to Westward, Summer Lane, Bromeswell
Against policy for Other Villages.
Site 697 – Land adjacent to Hill Farm, Common Lane, Bromeswell
Against policy for other Villages.
Site 697 – Land adjacent to Red Oaks House, Summer Lane, Bromeswell
Against policy for Other Villages.
• Development on Sites 697, 697a and 632 would amount to a 30% increase in house numbers in their unsustainable “Other Village” Settlement where there is very restricted road access. Such an increase flies in the face of The Core Strategy and National Government policy.
• The absence of Services within waling distance creates the obvious need for [usually] two cars per house; this will reduce land available for house and garden.
• Road Frontage:- In the case of 697 and 632 there is no road frontage. In the case of 697a there is virtually no road frontage. In all cases the link with metalled road is one of concealed visibility and single track with mud edges.
5. Removal of the Physical Limits boundary: The residents of this Settlement have consistently demonstrated a serious commitment to preserving the settlement’s established rural characteristics. The arguments put forward by the Parish Council objectively recognise characteristics which benefit the wider Suffolk Coastal community “where quality of life counts”/
6. It therefore follows that THE DISMISSAL of the three Development Site Submissions and THE REMOVAL of the Physical Limits Boundary is entirely appropriate and consistent with the Core Strategy.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>BROMESWELL PARISH COUNCIL
OBJECTIVE: 2.40 (Objetive 10 - Protecting and Enhancing [BULLSHIT] the Physical Environment). </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Margaret Cutts (0484) Bromeswell Parish Council (0069) Parish Council (0001) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Bromeswell Parish Council – January 2009
Response to Core Strategy preferred options and Public Development Site Submissions Nos: 697, 697a and 632
1. Please refer to the contents of the following three documents (previously lodged with SCDC):-
(a) Document 1: “Bromeswell Parish Plan” (2006)
(b) Document 2: “Bromeswell Parish Council’s Response to SCDC’s Core Strategy for the Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT]” (March 2007)
(c) Document 3: Letter to Mr. Steve Brown dated 6th July 2007 to clarify certain points.
2. Emphasis is placed on Objective 2.40 of the LDF Preferred Options.
This states the Objective is to protect and enhance [BULLSHIT] the physical and natural environment and maintain and enhance [BULLSHIT] the quality of the distinctive natural and built environment.
Bromeswelll Parish Council fully supports this Objective. It represents our own guiding objective to Development Control.
3. The Core Strategy Settlement Hierarchy designation recognises Bromewell as an Other Village without physical limits / village envelope boundary.
This designation is totally supported by The Parish Council. It is how the Settlement sees itself as evidenced by the Parish Plan and explained in other documents listed in Para 1.
• The Settlement has minimal Sustainability criteria. For details see docs listed in Para 1 above. In additional other factors include : no mains drainage/street lighting/only single track lanes with lose earth margins, no curbs or pavements, very restricted public transport …
• The Settlement has no evidence of Local Affordable Housing Need. Ref Parish Plan.
• The local demographic indicates that affordable housing in a community with minimal facilities would not would not be appropriate – see reasons laid out in docs listed in Para 1 – for example the lack of and /or expense of transport to and from local services.
• Recent new build development has taken place not for reasons of Housing Need but as executively style Property Speculation.
• The settlement lies directly adjacent to AONB, SSSI, SLA, SWT Nature Reserve, Open Access Land.
4. The three Development Site Submissions are strongly opposed.
Site 632 – Land adjacent to Westward, Summer Lane, Bromeswell
Against policy for Other Villages.
Site 697 – Land adjacent to Hill Farm, Common Lane, Bromeswell
Against policy for other Villages.
Site 697 – Land adjacent to Red Oaks House, Summer Lane, Bromeswell
Against policy for Other Villages.
• Development on Sites 697, 697a and 632 would amount to a 30% increase in house numbers in their unsustainable “Other Village” Settlement where there is very restricted road access. Such an increase flies in the face of The Core Strategy and National Government policy.
• The absence of Services within waling distance creates the obvious need for [usually] two cars per house; this will reduce land available for house and garden.
• Road Frontage:- In the case of 697 and 632 there is no road frontage. In the case of 697a there is virtually no road frontage. In all cases the link with metalled road is one of concealed visibility and single track with mud edges.
5. Removal of the Physical Limits boundary: The residents of this Settlement have consistently demonstrated a serious commitment to preserving the settlement’s established rural characteristics. The arguments put forward by the Parish Council objectively recognise characteristics which benefit the wider Suffolk Coastal community “where quality of life counts”/
6. It therefore follows that THE DISMISSAL of the three Development Site Submissions and THE REMOVAL of the Physical Limits Boundary is entirely appropriate and consistent with the Core Strategy.
| | BROMESWELL PARISH COUNCIL
OBJECTIVE: 2.40 (Objetive 10 - Protecting and Enhancing [BULLSHIT] the Physical Environment). | | No attached files |
|
| | enhance [BULLSHIT] oppertunities for all sport and recreation”.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>This local sports council which represents 30 affiliated sports clubs with 3600 members wishes to comment on the above document in order to strengthen the references to sport and recreation:</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Michael Sharman (0538) Felixstowe & District Councill Sport & Recreation (0073) District Council (0002) | | General Comments | | Page 14 – paragraph 1.36 – line 5 – Insert “for sport and recreation” between “facilities” and “and”.
Page 15 – paragraph 1.37 – line 4 – Insert “sport and recreation” between “training” and “and”.
Page 15 – paragraph 1.41 – line 5 – Add sentence “Improved access to sport, recreation and play would help to address this situation”.
Page 15 – paragraph 1.43 – line 4 – Add sentence “Sport and recreation across all ages could help to integrate the generation”.
Page 15 – paragraph 1.44 – Add new bullet point “Improve and enhance [BULLSHIT] oppertunities for all sport and recreation”.
| | This local sports council which represents 30 affiliated sports clubs with 3600 members wishes to comment on the above document in order to strengthen the references to sport and recreation: | | No attached files |
|
| | enhance [BULLSHIT] natural beauty. In pursuing this purpose we take account of the needs of agriculture, forestry, other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities. We pay particular regard to promoting sustainable [BULLSHIT] forms of social and economic development that in themselves conserve and enhance [BULLSHIT] the environment. While recreation is not an objective of AONB designation we work hard to meet the demands of recreation, in the area, as long as it is consistent with the conservation of natural beauty.
SUMMARY:
I. This is clearly a key consultation in terms of future development in the AONB.
II. We believe the AONB is close linked to a number of SCDC’s interests.
III. SCDC has statutory duty under s85 of the CROW Act 2000 to have regard to the AONB in performing its functions. These should be made clear in the core strategy.
IV. Strategic [BULLSHIT] objectives for the Coast should consider coastal access.
V. Environmental Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies (SP26-28) make no mention of the AONB and thereby fail to reflect SCDC’s statutory responsibility.
VI. Landscape Character has already been assessed for the whole of Suffolk.
VII. Development Control Policies are inconsistent in their approach to the AONB.
VIII. We would wish to see a DC policy for Landscape Character that makes reference to the AONB.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Unit (SCHU) believes this LDF core strategy preferred policy options document is key to the future of the AONB as it sets the vision [BULLSHIT] for development for the next 15 years. 85% of the AONB lies in Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) area and as the consultation document states (section 1.27), 1/3 of SCDC’s area is AONB. In our view the interest of both are close related. The AONB is important to a number of Areas of SCDC’s core strategy, outwith the environment. For example the economic interests (tourism in particular) are close related to the natural beauty of the area. Clearly the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB plays a key part in this.
2. We welcome [BULLSHIT] the profile that AONB receives in parts of the document, although we do have concerns about its absence in other parts, particularly in the Environmental Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies (SP26-28), where it is not even mentioned. Given SCDC’s duty to have regard for the AONB in performing its functions, set out in the CROW Act 2000 (s84 & s85), we believe failure to mention the AONB in Environmental Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies marks a serious omission by SCDC in meeting its legal responsibilities. The CROW Act sets the AONB apart from most other aspects of the natural environment for which SCDC has responsibility. We believe the core strategy should go further in seeking to protect the natural beauty of the AONB. We identify where and how in our specific comments below.
3. The core strategy and development control preferred policy document is well set out, making it easy to work through policy by policy. However more thought needs to be given to the audience of this document. Is if for development control purposes or for use by the general public? Inconsistencies in the way certain issues are handled, such as the AONB, could easily lead to confusion. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>SUFFOLK COAST AND HEATHS AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB) RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PREFERRED OPTIONS.
FEBRUARY 2009.</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Nick Collison (0553) Suffolk County Council (Coast & Heaths AONB) (0076) County Council (0003) | | General Comments | | Designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB is one of Britain’s finest landscapes. The area covers 150 square miles/403 square kilometres from Kessingland in the north to the Stour estuary in the south, with Ipswich on its western fringe. The AONB’s primary purpose is to conserve and enhance [BULLSHIT] natural beauty. In pursuing this purpose we take account of the needs of agriculture, forestry, other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities. We pay particular regard to promoting sustainable [BULLSHIT] forms of social and economic development that in themselves conserve and enhance [BULLSHIT] the environment. While recreation is not an objective of AONB designation we work hard to meet the demands of recreation, in the area, as long as it is consistent with the conservation of natural beauty.
SUMMARY:
I. This is clearly a key consultation in terms of future development in the AONB.
II. We believe the AONB is close linked to a number of SCDC’s interests.
III. SCDC has statutory duty under s85 of the CROW Act 2000 to have regard to the AONB in performing its functions. These should be made clear in the core strategy.
IV. Strategic [BULLSHIT] objectives for the Coast should consider coastal access.
V. Environmental Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies (SP26-28) make no mention of the AONB and thereby fail to reflect SCDC’s statutory responsibility.
VI. Landscape Character has already been assessed for the whole of Suffolk.
VII. Development Control Policies are inconsistent in their approach to the AONB.
VIII. We would wish to see a DC policy for Landscape Character that makes reference to the AONB.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Unit (SCHU) believes this LDF core strategy preferred policy options document is key to the future of the AONB as it sets the vision [BULLSHIT] for development for the next 15 years. 85% of the AONB lies in Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) area and as the consultation document states (section 1.27), 1/3 of SCDC’s area is AONB. In our view the interest of both are close related. The AONB is important to a number of Areas of SCDC’s core strategy, outwith the environment. For example the economic interests (tourism in particular) are close related to the natural beauty of the area. Clearly the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB plays a key part in this.
2. We welcome [BULLSHIT] the profile that AONB receives in parts of the document, although we do have concerns about its absence in other parts, particularly in the Environmental Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies (SP26-28), where it is not even mentioned. Given SCDC’s duty to have regard for the AONB in performing its functions, set out in the CROW Act 2000 (s84 & s85), we believe failure to mention the AONB in Environmental Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies marks a serious omission by SCDC in meeting its legal responsibilities. The CROW Act sets the AONB apart from most other aspects of the natural environment for which SCDC has responsibility. We believe the core strategy should go further in seeking to protect the natural beauty of the AONB. We identify where and how in our specific comments below.
3. The core strategy and development control preferred policy document is well set out, making it easy to work through policy by policy. However more thought needs to be given to the audience of this document. Is if for development control purposes or for use by the general public? Inconsistencies in the way certain issues are handled, such as the AONB, could easily lead to confusion. | | SUFFOLK COAST AND HEATHS AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB) RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PREFERRED OPTIONS.
FEBRUARY 2009. | | No attached files |
|
| | FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] (LDF): CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICICES PREFERRED OPTIONS.
I refer to your letter dated 5 December regarding Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Core Strategy Preferred Options. The Highways Agency has considered the document and has the following comments to make.
The Highways Agency interest relates to the all-purpose trunk road network that it manages on behalf of the Secretary of State. For the Suffolk Coastal area this relates to the A14 and A12 trunk roads.
Core Strategy Preferred Options
As at the Issues and Options stage, there are five basic themes, listed blow underlying Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) vision [BULLSHIT], which form the structure of the Core Strategy. Under each theme, SCDC proposes a set of objectives and policies.
1. Spatial [BULLSHIT] Planning and Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development
2. Housing
3. The Economy
4. The Environment
5. Community and Well Being
In the previous (Issues and Options) draft Core Strategy, SCDC acknowledged that the additional theme of transport “cuts across” the above five themes. However the only, somewhat limited, transport policies contained within the Issues and Options draft Core Strategy were all encompassed within the Economy theme.
In SCDC’s current (Preferred Options) draft Core Strategy, the contents and introduction sections imply that SCDC has considered the theme of transport independently from the five themes listed above. However, the transport-related “Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies” contained with the SCDC’s current draft Core Strategy are all included with the “Spatial [BULLSHIT] Planning and Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development” theme, and the transport-related “Development Control Policies” are solely included with the Economy theme.
As SCDC has previously acknowledged that the theme of transport actually “cuts across” all five underlying themes, the Highways Agency suggests it may be more logical for SCDC to consider grouping all transport-related objectives and policies under a separate transportation theme. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>(REG 25) CONSULTATIONS ON SUFFOLK COASTAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] (LDF): CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICICES PREFERRED OPTIONS. </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Davina Galloway (0566) Highways Agency (0077) Association (National) (0013) | | General Comments | | (REG 25) CONSULTATIONS ON SUFFOLK COASTAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] (LDF): CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICICES PREFERRED OPTIONS.
I refer to your letter dated 5 December regarding Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Core Strategy Preferred Options. The Highways Agency has considered the document and has the following comments to make.
The Highways Agency interest relates to the all-purpose trunk road network that it manages on behalf of the Secretary of State. For the Suffolk Coastal area this relates to the A14 and A12 trunk roads.
Core Strategy Preferred Options
As at the Issues and Options stage, there are five basic themes, listed blow underlying Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) vision [BULLSHIT], which form the structure of the Core Strategy. Under each theme, SCDC proposes a set of objectives and policies.
1. Spatial [BULLSHIT] Planning and Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development
2. Housing
3. The Economy
4. The Environment
5. Community and Well Being
In the previous (Issues and Options) draft Core Strategy, SCDC acknowledged that the additional theme of transport “cuts across” the above five themes. However the only, somewhat limited, transport policies contained within the Issues and Options draft Core Strategy were all encompassed within the Economy theme.
In SCDC’s current (Preferred Options) draft Core Strategy, the contents and introduction sections imply that SCDC has considered the theme of transport independently from the five themes listed above. However, the transport-related “Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies” contained with the SCDC’s current draft Core Strategy are all included with the “Spatial [BULLSHIT] Planning and Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development” theme, and the transport-related “Development Control Policies” are solely included with the Economy theme.
As SCDC has previously acknowledged that the theme of transport actually “cuts across” all five underlying themes, the Highways Agency suggests it may be more logical for SCDC to consider grouping all transport-related objectives and policies under a separate transportation theme. | | (REG 25) CONSULTATIONS ON SUFFOLK COASTAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] (LDF): CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICICES PREFERRED OPTIONS. | | No attached files |
|
| | engaged with [BULLSHIT] the evolving process of drawing up the new LDF over the last several years, the stage by stage process, together with the constantly changing criteria and methodology imposed by the Government, have made it difficult to keep track of the big picture. Reviewing these three components together has been a mammoth task, but has enabled the overall framework [BULLSHIT] and logic to be more clearly appreciated.
(b) The many maps and plans in the Site Specific Allocations document were well laid out, but,
i. were of different scales and gave no indication of scale or overall impact;
ii. did not distinguish between ‘domestic’ and ‘employment’ sites, and
iii. did not show where there were sites with existing planning permissions.
It would have been very helpful to have had an overall plan of the district with these details included.
The Parish Council would like to thank SCDC for producing on request a single map of all the Specific Sites in the area from the western boundary of Trimley/Kirton to the eastern fringes of Ipswich [Purdis Heath]. This has proved extremely helpful.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Suffolk Coastal District Council Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT] Consultation Papers
Levington & Stratton Hall Parish Council - Comments
GENERAL COMMENTS. </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mrs Jean Ruthen (0573) Levington & Stratton Hall Parish Council (0079) Parish Council (0001) | | General Comments | | Levington and Stratton Hall Parish Council has considered the following three consultation papers:
i. Core Strategy and Development Control Policies [Preferred Options]
ii. Site Specific Allocations and Policies [Issues and Options]
iii. Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Options – Sustainability Appraisal.
1. General Comments:
(a) While we have engaged with [BULLSHIT] the evolving process of drawing up the new LDF over the last several years, the stage by stage process, together with the constantly changing criteria and methodology imposed by the Government, have made it difficult to keep track of the big picture. Reviewing these three components together has been a mammoth task, but has enabled the overall framework [BULLSHIT] and logic to be more clearly appreciated.
(b) The many maps and plans in the Site Specific Allocations document were well laid out, but,
i. were of different scales and gave no indication of scale or overall impact;
ii. did not distinguish between ‘domestic’ and ‘employment’ sites, and
iii. did not show where there were sites with existing planning permissions.
It would have been very helpful to have had an overall plan of the district with these details included.
The Parish Council would like to thank SCDC for producing on request a single map of all the Specific Sites in the area from the western boundary of Trimley/Kirton to the eastern fringes of Ipswich [Purdis Heath]. This has proved extremely helpful. | | Suffolk Coastal District Council Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT] Consultation Papers
Levington & Stratton Hall Parish Council - Comments
GENERAL COMMENTS. | | No attached files |
|
| | Framework [BULLSHIT] Consultation Papers
Levington & Stratton Hall Parish Council - Comments
</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mrs Jean Ruthen (0573) Levington & Stratton Hall Parish Council (0079) Parish Council (0001) | | General Comments | | i. Core Strategy and Development Control Policies [Preferred Options]
1. Page 19 – Section 2.28
The promotion of tourism within the AONB needs to be tempered by:
i. The ability to access and park in the area through narrow roads.
ii. The potential degradation of the habitats due to the increased disturbance. (See Suffolk Coasts and Heaths/Suffolk Wildlife Trust survey on endangered wildlife habits along the river Orwell [see also pages 67/68 The Environment – Areas of Wildlife Importance]).
iii. The further disturbance of the narrow roads (and therefore the wildlife habitats) caused by Operation Stack. | | Suffolk Coastal District Council Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT] Consultation Papers
Levington & Stratton Hall Parish Council - Comments
| | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mrs Angie Vale (0461) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Disagree | | I am commenting on the whole document as I cannot see how these sections correspond to the document sections. It has been made too complicated for the average individual to understand or to comment on. Cutting through all of the wording, basically the proposal is to build lots more houses, thus distroying natural areas, increasing CO2 immissions, increasing pressure on already oversubscribed schools, surgeries, hospitals, police, etc & increasing traffic congestion & pollution. I have seen all the potential areas up for graps to build on & it is frightning. We will no longer be rual communities surrounded by beautiful countryside but will become a continuous metropolis of non descript, uninspiring brick boxes tightly squashed together from Ipswich to Felixstowe & Woodbridge. | | Cutting through all of the wording, basically the proposal is to build lots more houses, thus distroying natural areas, increasing CO2 immissions, increasing pressure on already overburdened services. I have seen all the potential areas up for graps to build on & it is frightning. We will become a continuous metropolis of non descript, uninspiring brick boxes tightly squashed together from Ipswich to Felixstowe & Woodbridge. | | No attached files |
|
| | framework [BULLSHIT] which ….. sets out the number of houses needed …. Until at least 2001”. The year “2001” is clearly an error. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>General Comments re. errors. </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | |
| | | | Captain Nigel Palmer (0124) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | General Comments | | This consultation process has not been well managed. Public meetings/exhibitions have only been held following public pressure. To have a further consultation so soon after the first is confusing - many members of the public will feel that they have already commented. This website as a means for comment is awful - I have not come across something so difficult to use in years. I`m sure many people will simply have given up unless they are particularly computer literate.
In addition to have a further consultancy (Entec) with its own consultation process running concurently simply adds to the confusion. The Entec site is also apallingly designed and difficult to interpret/use. The criteria for site assesment within the Entec process seem to have been set by SCDC without any public discussion. These criteria are so restrictive that virtually the only sites in Felixstowe that meet them are those North of Candlet Road on the LDF`s preferred locations. | | Consultation process badly managed. Website user unfriendly. Entec consultation introduces further complexity/confusion. Entec study criteria set without public discussion and produce predetemined results. | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>(REG 25) CONSULTING ON SUFFOLK COASTAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] (LDF):
1. CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES PREFERRED OPTIONS; AND,
2. SITE SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS & POLICIES ISSUES & OPTIONS CONSULTATION
Hutchinson Ports (UK) Limited (“HPUK”) operates the Port of Felixstowe, London Thamesport and Harwich International Port. HPUK has reviewed the above Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT] (“LDF”) documents and makes the following observations:
1. Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options
1.1 The Objectives:
2.13 Housing Growth: HPUK acknowledges and supports the objective to provide additional local housing to enable workers to live in the locality.
2.20 Economic Development: Notwithstanding the current economic climate,
HPUK welcomes the recognition that the Port of Felixstowe is forecast to grown and with such expansion comes a demand from business for land to accommodated associated growth needs.
2.33 Transport: At 2.34 HPUK notes the objective in respect of the local rail route between Ipswich and Felixstowe, but would suggest that the following additional words are included: “… will continue to be supported and enhanced for both freight and public transport”. This is in recognition that this route plays a critical role in the movement of freight from the Port of Felixstowe, and without it there would be considerable additional HGV movements on the A14.
1.2 Lorry Parking:
At 1.26 one of the ‘key transport issues’ is identified at point (v) as ‘Lorry parking at Felixstowe’. HPUK notes that this issue is not addressed further in the Options document, and would suggest that the issue of ‘Lorry parking’ is referred to in ‘Objective 8’ as its resolution will serve to enhance [BULLSHIT] the transport network, particularly the free flow of traffic on the A14. It should not be an issue that is earmarked as belonging to ‘Felixstowe’ as it involves the movement of freight through the Region and this route is of national significance. The Port of Felixstowe continues to work in partnership with [BULLSHIT] other stakeholders to manage this concern. Resolution may be on a site remote from Felixstowe but if it meets the objective of enhancing [BULLSHIT] the transport network HPUK would expect to see the Council’s policies supporting this. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>1.1 - The Objectives
2.13 - Housing Growth
2.20 - Economic Development
2.33 - Transport
1.2 - Lorry Parking</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Jane Stanbridge (0654) Hutchinson Ports (UK) Limited (0087) Pressure Group (International) (0009) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | (REG 25) CONSULTING ON SUFFOLK COASTAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] (LDF):
1. CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES PREFERRED OPTIONS; AND,
2. SITE SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS & POLICIES ISSUES & OPTIONS CONSULTATION
Hutchinson Ports (UK) Limited (“HPUK”) operates the Port of Felixstowe, London Thamesport and Harwich International Port. HPUK has reviewed the above Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT] (“LDF”) documents and makes the following observations:
1. Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options
1.1 The Objectives:
2.13 Housing Growth: HPUK acknowledges and supports the objective to provide additional local housing to enable workers to live in the locality.
2.20 Economic Development: Notwithstanding the current economic climate,
HPUK welcomes the recognition that the Port of Felixstowe is forecast to grown and with such expansion comes a demand from business for land to accommodated associated growth needs.
2.33 Transport: At 2.34 HPUK notes the objective in respect of the local rail route between Ipswich and Felixstowe, but would suggest that the following additional words are included: “… will continue to be supported and enhanced for both freight and public transport”. This is in recognition that this route plays a critical role in the movement of freight from the Port of Felixstowe, and without it there would be considerable additional HGV movements on the A14.
1.2 Lorry Parking:
At 1.26 one of the ‘key transport issues’ is identified at point (v) as ‘Lorry parking at Felixstowe’. HPUK notes that this issue is not addressed further in the Options document, and would suggest that the issue of ‘Lorry parking’ is referred to in ‘Objective 8’ as its resolution will serve to enhance [BULLSHIT] the transport network, particularly the free flow of traffic on the A14. It should not be an issue that is earmarked as belonging to ‘Felixstowe’ as it involves the movement of freight through the Region and this route is of national significance. The Port of Felixstowe continues to work in partnership with [BULLSHIT] other stakeholders to manage this concern. Resolution may be on a site remote from Felixstowe but if it meets the objective of enhancing [BULLSHIT] the transport network HPUK would expect to see the Council’s policies supporting this. | | 1.1 - The Objectives
2.13 - Housing Growth
2.20 - Economic Development
2.33 - Transport
1.2 - Lorry Parking | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Please include specific protection for Martlesham Heath Village.
Could it be a designated special landscape area.
It need protecting in its entirety from any further development on its landscaped verges, green corridors, surrounding greenspace [BULLSHIT].
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Section: Objective 10
SUPPORTING & GENERAL COMMENTS</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | |
| | undertaken [BULLSHIT] to comply with Regulation 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008, pre-submission consultation with the community and stakeholders on issues and options for the Suffolk Coastal Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs.
3. In our letter of 2 April 2007 responding to your Core strategy issues and options consultation, we reminded you of some earlier advice we have provided relating to the preparation of Core Strategies. We do not repeat this advice here, though you may wish to refresh your memory as it is still relevant.
Going Forward [BULLSHIT] under a revised PPS12
4. You will be aware that CLG published revisions to the Regulations in June 2008, which are now in place, along with revised PPS12. The legislative requirements are set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.
5. The revisions are mainly aimed at streamlining [BULLSHIT] the process further to help ensure that the production of DPDs happens as quickly as possible, whilst ensuring that public participation is effective, and the results fully taken into account. As well as this, the revisions provide local planning authorities with greater freedom to determine the most appropriate way to prepare or revise DPDs. In particular, the amending regulations have removed one of the formal stages of consultation – the Preferred Option stage - and now require that publication and representations are made on a DPD before submission to the Secretary of State. In relation to our comments on your Core Strategy and Site Specific Allocations DPDs, please note that where we refer to ‘proposed submission Core Strategy’ and ‘proposed submission Site Specific Allocations’, this corresponds to the Regulation 27 publication stage.
6. You should refer to the new PPS in taking forward this DPD, but essentially you will need to comply with the following principles in the PPS on:
• Participation and stakeholders (see section 4.20, 4.25 & 4.27);
• Not repeating national and regional policy (4.30);
• Being subject to a sustainability appraisal (4.39 – 4.42);
• Being justified, effective and consistent with national policy (4.36 &4.44) and
• Being produced according to the timetable set out in the LDS to ensure that the DPD is produced in a timely and efficient manner (see section 4.53 & 4.54).
7. Further guidance, including examples of best practice [BULLSHIT], is provided in the Plan Making Manual, which may be accessed via the Planning Advisory Service’s website: www.pas.gov.uk/planmakingmanual. Additional content will become available in further updates of the Manual. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>GO-EAST (GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND)
- Consultation being undertaken [BULLSHIT] to comply with Regulation 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008;
- Going Forward [BULLSHIT] under a revised PPS12 ;
- Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.
</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Maydo Pitt (0768) Go-East Government Office for the East of England (0122) Unitary Council (0016) | | General Comments | | 1. Thank you for inviting us to comment on the Core Strategy Preferred Options and the Site Specific Allocations issues and options documents, related to the preparation of the Suffolk Coastal Core Strategy and Site Specific Allocations DPDs.
2. We are responding to the Core Strategy Preferred Options and Site Specific Allocations Issues and Options documents on the basis that they are part of the consultation being undertaken [BULLSHIT] to comply with Regulation 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008, pre-submission consultation with the community and stakeholders on issues and options for the Suffolk Coastal Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs.
3. In our letter of 2 April 2007 responding to your Core strategy issues and options consultation, we reminded you of some earlier advice we have provided relating to the preparation of Core Strategies. We do not repeat this advice here, though you may wish to refresh your memory as it is still relevant.
Going Forward [BULLSHIT] under a revised PPS12
4. You will be aware that CLG published revisions to the Regulations in June 2008, which are now in place, along with revised PPS12. The legislative requirements are set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.
5. The revisions are mainly aimed at streamlining [BULLSHIT] the process further to help ensure that the production of DPDs happens as quickly as possible, whilst ensuring that public participation is effective, and the results fully taken into account. As well as this, the revisions provide local planning authorities with greater freedom to determine the most appropriate way to prepare or revise DPDs. In particular, the amending regulations have removed one of the formal stages of consultation – the Preferred Option stage - and now require that publication and representations are made on a DPD before submission to the Secretary of State. In relation to our comments on your Core Strategy and Site Specific Allocations DPDs, please note that where we refer to ‘proposed submission Core Strategy’ and ‘proposed submission Site Specific Allocations’, this corresponds to the Regulation 27 publication stage.
6. You should refer to the new PPS in taking forward this DPD, but essentially you will need to comply with the following principles in the PPS on:
• Participation and stakeholders (see section 4.20, 4.25 & 4.27);
• Not repeating national and regional policy (4.30);
• Being subject to a sustainability appraisal (4.39 – 4.42);
• Being justified, effective and consistent with national policy (4.36 &4.44) and
• Being produced according to the timetable set out in the LDS to ensure that the DPD is produced in a timely and efficient manner (see section 4.53 & 4.54).
7. Further guidance, including examples of best practice [BULLSHIT], is provided in the Plan Making Manual, which may be accessed via the Planning Advisory Service’s website: www.pas.gov.uk/planmakingmanual. Additional content will become available in further updates of the Manual. | | GO-EAST (GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND)
- Consultation being undertaken [BULLSHIT] to comply with Regulation 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008;
- Going Forward [BULLSHIT] under a revised PPS12 ;
- Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.
| | No attached files |
|
| | Sustainable [BULLSHIT] patter limited solely to that required to meet local needs).
OBJECTING</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mrs Juliet Gordon (0792) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | | I am objecting to the possible designation of UFFORD as a Key Village. His would open floodgates for development & would destroy the pattern of an ancient settlement and village community.
The village of Ufford should be designated as a Local Service Centre, with the village envelope retained without amendment. Providing Ufford with the infrastructure necessary for a Key Village status would lead to urban-type sprawl towards both Melton and Wickham market, eliminating countryside and a rural way of life.
| | Section: OBJECTIVES I
Paragraph: 2.17 (Sustainable [BULLSHIT] patter limited solely to that required to meet local needs).
OBJECTING | | No attached files |
|
| | sustainable communities [BULLSHIT].
We would be keen to support this policy.
TRANPSORT PROFILE:
In section 1.26, Key Transport Issues, your paragraph (ii) refers to:
(ii) A concern for the creation of lorry traffic on rural roads by new employment activity but also by agricultural Practice.
We would support this.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE:
Your section 1.35 refers to the demand of the older population. We feel that the housing needs of older people in existing communities needs to be addressed. Our feedback from the people of Little Bealings is that older people who wish to remain in their communities need good quality but smaller dwellings. These should not be isolated from other types of housing.
This also relates to your section 1.43, where the quality of life of older people can be maintained by empowering [BULLSHIT] them to remain in the communities where they have lived.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>GENERAL COMMENTS
As a landowner in the area, we support changes to policy to introduce greater flexibility and a more pragmatic approach to achieving planning gain. </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Tim Baker (0799) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | General Comments | | As a landowner in the area, we support changes to policy to introduce greater flexibility and a more pragmatic approach to achieving planning gain.
ECONOMIC PROFILE:
In your section 1.19, Key Economic Issues, paragraph (viii) refers to:
(viii) The need for additional flexibility in respect of new policies to cover the conversion of rural buildings, Particularly when close to sustainable communities [BULLSHIT].
We would be keen to support this policy.
TRANPSORT PROFILE:
In section 1.26, Key Transport Issues, your paragraph (ii) refers to:
(ii) A concern for the creation of lorry traffic on rural roads by new employment activity but also by agricultural Practice.
We would support this.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE:
Your section 1.35 refers to the demand of the older population. We feel that the housing needs of older people in existing communities needs to be addressed. Our feedback from the people of Little Bealings is that older people who wish to remain in their communities need good quality but smaller dwellings. These should not be isolated from other types of housing.
This also relates to your section 1.43, where the quality of life of older people can be maintained by empowering [BULLSHIT] them to remain in the communities where they have lived.
| | GENERAL COMMENTS
As a landowner in the area, we support changes to policy to introduce greater flexibility and a more pragmatic approach to achieving planning gain. | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>We welcome [BULLSHIT] the opportunity to comment on the content of Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Core Strategy Preferred Options document on behalf of BT. Due to technical problems with the Council’s online submission system I revert to an ‘old fashioned’ letter.
Section: 2 The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives
Paragraph: 2.20 to 2.24
SUPPORTING
We suggest that reference is made to the need to locate housing close to centres of employment. This is noted as a reason for developing at Felixstowe (to reduce the need to commute) but is absent with regards to the IPA. Under Policy SP1 – Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development reference is made to the need to relate housing to “services, employment, transport and infrastructure”. It is suggested that this is included within Objective 2.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Section: 2 The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives
Paragraph: 2.13 to 2.17
OBJECTING</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Peter Chambers (0803) David Lock Associates on behalf of BT (0099) Company (International) (0006) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | We welcome [BULLSHIT] the opportunity to comment on the content of Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Core Strategy Preferred Options document on behalf of BT. Due to technical problems with the Council’s online submission system I revert to an ‘old fashioned’ letter.
Section: 2 The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives
Paragraph: 2.20 to 2.24
SUPPORTING
We suggest that reference is made to the need to locate housing close to centres of employment. This is noted as a reason for developing at Felixstowe (to reduce the need to commute) but is absent with regards to the IPA. Under Policy SP1 – Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development reference is made to the need to relate housing to “services, employment, transport and infrastructure”. It is suggested that this is included within Objective 2.
| | Section: 2 The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives
Paragraph: 2.13 to 2.17
OBJECTING | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Regional Economic Strategy
The new RES sets out the objectives and long term vision [BULLSHIT] for the region’s economy with high and growing levels of wealth, increasing levels of economic participation and inclusion and sustainable [BULLSHIT] dynamic rural economies. The RES also aligns with the spatial [BULLSHIT] strategy for the region and identifies 8 goals to deliver a leading economy; there are a series of priorities [BULLSHIT] within the RES that are particularly relevant to this development brief and this site.
o Goal 1 – Enterprise
The enterprise goal looks to increase opportunities for international trade, investment and collaboration [BULLSHIT] and strengthening the regions enterprise culture.
o Goal 2 – Innovation
This goals looks realising the value of innovation by bringing ideas to market and developing a culture of innovation and creativity
o Goal 3 – Digital Economy
Aims to accelerate the use of digital technologies in public services, society and commerce
o Goal 7 – Transport
Increasing economic benefit to the East of England from major international gateways
Reducing the environmental impact of moving goods and people
o Goal 8 – The Spatial [BULLSHIT] Economy
Ensuring physical development meets the needs of a changing economy
Creating sustainable [BULLSHIT] places for people and business, including providing a high quality supply of employment land throughout the region.
The district partially falls within the Haven Gateway sub region which is one of the key international gateways to the UK. Its growth and infrastructure are therefore of national significance to the well being of the UK economy.
EEDA’s growth objectives are reflected in the East of England Plan and EEDA strongly supports the jobs growth figures contained in Policy E1. The plan makes provision for 30,000 jobs in the period 2001-2021 for the districts of Babergh, Suffolk Coastal and Ipswich. We believe this to be a realistic target which reflects the spatial [BULLSHIT] distribution of job growth across the region, to enable the most prosperous areas to lead the regions economic progress whilst promoting a step change [BULLSHIT] in employment growth, development and diversification in the regions priority [BULLSHIT] regeneration areas. The vision [BULLSHIT] set out in the Core Strategy should explicitly recognise the district’s position within the Haven Gateway sub region and the national significance of it as a key economic driver.
The East of England Plan identifies Ipswich as a key centre for development and change and supports the expansion of the ICT clusters at Martlesham. More specifically it identifies the need for 3,200 homes to be provided to the east of Ipswich within SCDC and an indicative target of 30,000 jobs in the Suffolk part of the Haven Gateway. Again, this should be more explicit within the vision [BULLSHIT].</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Regional Economic Strategy
- Goal 1 – Enterprise
- Goal 2 – Innovation
- Goal 3 – Digital Economy
- Goal 7 – Transport
- Goal 8 – The Spatial [BULLSHIT] Economy</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Natalie Blaken (0804) East of England Development Agency (0129) Unitary Council (0016) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Regional Economic Strategy
The new RES sets out the objectives and long term vision [BULLSHIT] for the region’s economy with high and growing levels of wealth, increasing levels of economic participation and inclusion and sustainable [BULLSHIT] dynamic rural economies. The RES also aligns with the spatial [BULLSHIT] strategy for the region and identifies 8 goals to deliver a leading economy; there are a series of priorities [BULLSHIT] within the RES that are particularly relevant to this development brief and this site.
o Goal 1 – Enterprise
The enterprise goal looks to increase opportunities for international trade, investment and collaboration [BULLSHIT] and strengthening the regions enterprise culture.
o Goal 2 – Innovation
This goals looks realising the value of innovation by bringing ideas to market and developing a culture of innovation and creativity
o Goal 3 – Digital Economy
Aims to accelerate the use of digital technologies in public services, society and commerce
o Goal 7 – Transport
Increasing economic benefit to the East of England from major international gateways
Reducing the environmental impact of moving goods and people
o Goal 8 – The Spatial [BULLSHIT] Economy
Ensuring physical development meets the needs of a changing economy
Creating sustainable [BULLSHIT] places for people and business, including providing a high quality supply of employment land throughout the region.
The district partially falls within the Haven Gateway sub region which is one of the key international gateways to the UK. Its growth and infrastructure are therefore of national significance to the well being of the UK economy.
EEDA’s growth objectives are reflected in the East of England Plan and EEDA strongly supports the jobs growth figures contained in Policy E1. The plan makes provision for 30,000 jobs in the period 2001-2021 for the districts of Babergh, Suffolk Coastal and Ipswich. We believe this to be a realistic target which reflects the spatial [BULLSHIT] distribution of job growth across the region, to enable the most prosperous areas to lead the regions economic progress whilst promoting a step change [BULLSHIT] in employment growth, development and diversification in the regions priority [BULLSHIT] regeneration areas. The vision [BULLSHIT] set out in the Core Strategy should explicitly recognise the district’s position within the Haven Gateway sub region and the national significance of it as a key economic driver.
The East of England Plan identifies Ipswich as a key centre for development and change and supports the expansion of the ICT clusters at Martlesham. More specifically it identifies the need for 3,200 homes to be provided to the east of Ipswich within SCDC and an indicative target of 30,000 jobs in the Suffolk part of the Haven Gateway. Again, this should be more explicit within the vision [BULLSHIT]. | | Regional Economic Strategy
- Goal 1 – Enterprise
- Goal 2 – Innovation
- Goal 3 – Digital Economy
- Goal 7 – Transport
- Goal 8 – The Spatial [BULLSHIT] Economy | | No attached files |
|
| | | | |
| | sustainable [BULLSHIT]" in terms of any of the inter related factors listed at para 8 "
environmental, social and economic".
The housing should be much reduced. Potential at the BT site should be maximised with the residual distributed around the District.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Section: Introduction
Paragraph: Paras. 8,9 10
OBJECTING</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Len Lanigan (0843) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Introduction | | As in the earlier consultation, I do not agree with the artificiality in the allocations especially the line between East of Ipswich and the Peninsula. The BT site is for the most part "brown" and hugely preferable to the areas targeted on the Peninsula. The scale of development proposed for the Peninsula is not "sustainable [BULLSHIT]" in terms of any of the inter related factors listed at para 8 "
environmental, social and economic".
The housing should be much reduced. Potential at the BT site should be maximised with the residual distributed around the District. | | Section: Introduction
Paragraph: Paras. 8,9 10
OBJECTING | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Page 19 233
Transport "To enhance [BULLSHIT] the transport Network across the District"
It would be helpful if the line from Saxmundham to Leiston was upgraded to a passenger line as is stated in the Suffolk Rail Plan. I do not believe this upgrade is mentioned anywhere in the LDF
Page 23 3.08 Settlement Hierarachy Physical Limits Boundary I welcome [BULLSHIT] this option particularly as it differentiates between open countryside and the
built environment.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Section: All
Page 19 233 - Transport
Page 23 3.08 - Settlement Hierarachy: Physical Limits Boundary
GENERAL COMMENT</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Joan Girling (0871) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Page 19 233
Transport "To enhance [BULLSHIT] the transport Network across the District"
It would be helpful if the line from Saxmundham to Leiston was upgraded to a passenger line as is stated in the Suffolk Rail Plan. I do not believe this upgrade is mentioned anywhere in the LDF
Page 23 3.08 Settlement Hierarachy Physical Limits Boundary I welcome [BULLSHIT] this option particularly as it differentiates between open countryside and the
built environment. | | Section: All
Page 19 233 - Transport
Page 23 3.08 - Settlement Hierarachy: Physical Limits Boundary
GENERAL COMMENT | | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mrs Sally Redfern (0880) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | District Profile | | What is the revised requirement for new homes given the depressed economic climate? In the longterm, the current predicted figure of ‘10,200 new homes’ needed in the Suffolk Coastal District (Section 1, para1.07) is now likely to be an overestimate.
Recalculated predictions of housing need for the area from central government are
necessary before planning applications are considered. | | Section: 1
Paragraph: 1.07
OBJECTING | | No attached files |
|
| | | | |
| | capacity [BULLSHIT] Ipswich – Port of Felixstowe, gives opportunity for community and tourist use of redundant v railspur (Trimley-river) along the lines of the Tomline Transit Scheme (Diagram attached).
This “tomline transit” will connect well with the rail-future Oxford-Cambridge rail link as a seas-side destination with excellent Public interconnections to river and sea ferries and the seaside itself.
A park and Ride (with rail join) at Levington would better connect the Peninsular with Ipswich and beyond. “Tomline transit” will reduce car use and improve capacity [BULLSHIT] on the Trans-European Network E24-E30 accessing Felixstowe, particularly the at capacity [BULLSHIT] orwell road Bridge. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Section: Transport Profile 1
Paragraph: 1.20
GENERAL COMMENTS
</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://apps1.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/scdc/ShowConsultPic.asp?PhotoId=117" target="_blank">Click here to view Tomline.doc</a></td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr M R J Ninnmey (0906) - individual person, no organisation - (0002) Individual person (0010) | | Introduction | | Add at end of 1.20 – LACKS AMBITION.
Increased capacity [BULLSHIT] Ipswich – Port of Felixstowe, gives opportunity for community and tourist use of redundant v railspur (Trimley-river) along the lines of the Tomline Transit Scheme (Diagram attached).
This “tomline transit” will connect well with the rail-future Oxford-Cambridge rail link as a seas-side destination with excellent Public interconnections to river and sea ferries and the seaside itself.
A park and Ride (with rail join) at Levington would better connect the Peninsular with Ipswich and beyond. “Tomline transit” will reduce car use and improve capacity [BULLSHIT] on the Trans-European Network E24-E30 accessing Felixstowe, particularly the at capacity [BULLSHIT] orwell road Bridge. | | Section: Transport Profile 1
Paragraph: 1.20
GENERAL COMMENTS
| | Click here to view Tomline.doc |
|
| | | | Mr Richard Ward (0815) Suffolk Preservation Society (0116) Association (Local) (0012) | | Introduction | | Suffolk Coastal District Council – LDF – Core Strategy and Development Control Policies – Preferred Options Consultation.
I refer to the above and your letter of the 5th December, 2008. I am pleased to be able to submit to you, in the attached document, the Society’s comments which are aimed at assisting the District Council in the formulation of the submission versions of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies documents.
The detailed comments attached have been formulated very much to follow the way the original text and document has been drafted to make it easier to incorporate the Society’s suggestions. However, in doing this it has not been possible to raise one major concern that the Society has about the whole Core Strategy and Development Control Policies. It appreciates and takes full account of the guidance given to LPAs regarding the preparation of LDF documents, and the contents of the various PPS and RSS14. However, we are concerned as to whether in total the two documents sufficiently acknowledge the district’s special environment, in terms of both the historic built heritage and landscape/countryside and to afford them sufficient protection in the future while new development is integrated into the area. In the end, this is the balance which has to be struck when planning for the future in the district. The Society, because of this concern, remains unconvinced that this balance has yet to be achieved.
Therefore, the Society asks that this issue, which is part of our response to the documents, is considered most carefully and that subsequent changes are made to the submission versions of both, to make it clear that the council/LPA are committed to protecting both these elements of the environment. | | Suffolk Coastal District Council – LDF – Core Strategy and Development Control Policies – Preferred Options Consultation.
Suffolk Preservation Society | | No attached files |
|
| | spatial [BULLSHIT] strategy and settlement hierarchy towards the achievement of sustainable [BULLSHIT] development.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Representation to the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options Consultation
We write on behalf of our clients, Notcutts Ltd, and wish to make the following representations to the latest consultation on the emerging Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document.</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Geoff Armstrong (0820) DPP (Development PLanning Partnership) (0136) Company (Local) (0004) | | General Comments | | Representation to the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options Consultation
We write on behalf of our clients, Notcutts Ltd, and wish to make the following representations to the latest consultation on the emerging Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. It should be noted that we broadly support the Council's preferred policy options subject to consideration of the following points with particular regard to proposed housing and employment policy. Separate representations have been made to the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Issues and Options Consultation in respect of a number of sites in the District in our clients' ownership (as identified under separate cover, DPP Ref: GA/EC/1044309/L0002ec). With regard to the suggested site allocations, we support the Council's overall spatial [BULLSHIT] strategy and settlement hierarchy towards the achievement of sustainable [BULLSHIT] development.
| | Representation to the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options Consultation
We write on behalf of our clients, Notcutts Ltd, and wish to make the following representations to the latest consultation on the emerging Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. | | No attached files |
|
| | Framework [BULLSHIT]
Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Preferred Options
Site Specific Allocations & Polices Issues and Options
Sustainability Appraisal
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above documents.
We have reviewed the documents and have set out below comments and observations on a number of issues that fall within or remit and areas of interest. Our response is structured as follows:
General Principles
Evidence Base [BULLSHIT]
Comments on Site Specific Allocations DPD
Comments on Core Strategy Vision [BULLSHIT], Objectives and Policies
Comments on Development Control Policies
Sustainability Appraisal
Appropriate Assessment
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Environment Agency - GENERAL COMMENTS</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Andrew Hunter (0822) Environment Agency (0137) Association (National) (0013) | | General Comments | | Suffolk Coastal Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT]
Core Strategy and Development Control Polices Preferred Options
Site Specific Allocations & Polices Issues and Options
Sustainability Appraisal
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above documents.
We have reviewed the documents and have set out below comments and observations on a number of issues that fall within or remit and areas of interest. Our response is structured as follows:
General Principles
Evidence Base [BULLSHIT]
Comments on Site Specific Allocations DPD
Comments on Core Strategy Vision [BULLSHIT], Objectives and Policies
Comments on Development Control Policies
Sustainability Appraisal
Appropriate Assessment
| | Environment Agency - GENERAL COMMENTS | | No attached files |
|
| | capacity [BULLSHIT]
• Electrical supply capacity [BULLSHIT]
• School provision
• Health facilities
The Grove and Millennium Wood should be protected in planning policy.
Allotments, playing fields, golf range, stables, Rifle Club should be preserved as far as practicable in their current location – improved provision and availability if possible.
Areas closely related in use to the Grove, Millennium Wood, Eastward Ho should be preserved for leisure and informal recreational purposes.”
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>FELIXSTOWE TOWN COUNCIL RESPONSE RE CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES PREFERRED OPTIONS</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mrs S C Robinson (0578) Felixstowe Town Council (0080) Parish Council (0001) | | General Comments | | FELIXSTOWE TOWN COUNCIL RESPONSE RE CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES PREFERRED OPTIONS
1) Resolution of Felixstowe Town Council 9th. February 2009
Felixstowe Town Council considered the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options at a recent meeting. At that meeting the Town Council passed the following resolution specifically related to the housing allocation within the Strategy:
“ This Council totally rejects the Entec report.
Felixstowe Town Council recognises that there is significant concern in the town regarding any potential loss of countryside. The Council believes there is a need for some additional housing over the long term but recognises that there are concerns over the number, timing and location of those homes.
We request that Suffolk Coastal District Council take steps to phase the allocation of any new sites at a rate of no more than 70 homes per year on distributed sites, whilst ensuring that infrastructure provision precedes any further allocation of large sites.
The phasing should be subject to:
• Outstanding planning permissions eg. South Seafront land, convent
• Windfall sites eg. Deben High School.
• Proven continuing need demonstrated by periodic needs assessments.
• Housing types and sizes targeted especially for the older population and younger first time buyers.
Prior infrastructure provision should include:
• Road access – local and trunk roads.
• Sewerage capacity [BULLSHIT]
• Electrical supply capacity [BULLSHIT]
• School provision
• Health facilities
The Grove and Millennium Wood should be protected in planning policy.
Allotments, playing fields, golf range, stables, Rifle Club should be preserved as far as practicable in their current location – improved provision and availability if possible.
Areas closely related in use to the Grove, Millennium Wood, Eastward Ho should be preserved for leisure and informal recreational purposes.”
| | FELIXSTOWE TOWN COUNCIL RESPONSE RE CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES PREFERRED OPTIONS | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>The Woodbridge Society Planning Group has pleasure in submitting the following comments on the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation exercise.
1. Summary;
The Planning Group broadly endorses the 10 Objectives of the Core Strategy of the draft LDF, particularly those pertaining to growth to the east of Ipswich. Whilst the Group recognizes the imperative to provide more housing and employment opportunities in the areas to the east of Ipswich (in particular Martlesham, Martlesham Heath and Kesgrave), it considers the need to retain a “cordon sanitaire” between Woodbridge and the eastern edge of the greater Ipswich conurbation as a strategic [BULLSHIT] objectives of the highest priority [BULLSHIT]. (See paragraph 2 © below).
This response to the consultation on the draft LDF is limited to matters concerning Woodbridge and surrounding parishes.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>The Woodbridge Society Planning Group has pleasure in submitting the following comments on the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation exercise.
- The Planning Group broadly endorses the 10 Objectives of the Core Strategy of the draft LDF, particularly those pertaining to growth to the east of Ipswich.
</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Neil Montgomery (0933) The Woodbridge Society (0145) Association (Local) (0012) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | The Woodbridge Society Planning Group has pleasure in submitting the following comments on the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation exercise.
1. Summary;
The Planning Group broadly endorses the 10 Objectives of the Core Strategy of the draft LDF, particularly those pertaining to growth to the east of Ipswich. Whilst the Group recognizes the imperative to provide more housing and employment opportunities in the areas to the east of Ipswich (in particular Martlesham, Martlesham Heath and Kesgrave), it considers the need to retain a “cordon sanitaire” between Woodbridge and the eastern edge of the greater Ipswich conurbation as a strategic [BULLSHIT] objectives of the highest priority [BULLSHIT]. (See paragraph 2 © below).
This response to the consultation on the draft LDF is limited to matters concerning Woodbridge and surrounding parishes.
| | The Woodbridge Society Planning Group has pleasure in submitting the following comments on the LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation exercise.
- The Planning Group broadly endorses the 10 Objectives of the Core Strategy of the draft LDF, particularly those pertaining to growth to the east of Ipswich.
| | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mr Paul Bryant (0334) East of England Regional Assembly (0043) District Council (0002) | | Introduction | | Regional Planning Panel Standing Committee
23rd January 2009
Subject: Suffolk Coastal District Council - Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options
Report by: Report by Regional Secretariat
Purpose:
To give a response to the Suffolk Coastal Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options consultation document.
Recommendation:
That the Standing Committee considers the recommendation that the comments in Appendix A form a basis for a response to the above consultation documents. | | Report by:
Report by Regional Secretariat | | No attached files |
|
| | Framework [BULLSHIT] (LDF).
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>ALDEBURGH SOCIETY.
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] - 2006.
</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr John Richardson (0953) The Aldeburgh Society (0151) Association (Local) (0012) | | General Comments | | A. Introduction.
The following recommendations for onward transmission to Suffolk Coastal District Council are based on discussions within the Planning Sub-Committee of The Society and discussions with representatives of Aldeburgh Town Council (ATC), Aldeburgh Business Association (ABA), and Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC).
Where appropriate, reference is made to Planning Policies of SCDC’s Local Plan (LP) of February 2001, which is to be superseded by the Local Development Framework [BULLSHIT] (LDF).
| | ALDEBURGH SOCIETY.
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [BULLSHIT] - 2006.
| | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above document. Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government’s sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our national and regional priorities [BULLSHIT]. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee [BULLSHIT] on planning applications affecting playing fields.
In response to the consultation, I would like to respond to the following parts of the document:
CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES PREFERRED OPTIONS
Vision [BULLSHIT]
Para 2.09
Sport England welcomes reference to access to leisure facilities and the important links to be made to healthier lifestyles.
Objectives
Sport England particularly welcomes Objective 14 (leisure) which promotes the maintenance of a network of sport and recreation facilities.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Section: Vision [BULLSHIT]
Para 2.09
- Sport England welcomes reference to access to leisure facilities and the important links to be made to healthier lifestyles.
Section: Objectives
- Sport England particularly welcomes Objective 14 (leisure).
</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Philip Raiswell (0988) Sport England (East) (0154) Association (Local) (0012) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above document. Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government’s sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our national and regional priorities [BULLSHIT]. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee [BULLSHIT] on planning applications affecting playing fields.
In response to the consultation, I would like to respond to the following parts of the document:
CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES PREFERRED OPTIONS
Vision [BULLSHIT]
Para 2.09
Sport England welcomes reference to access to leisure facilities and the important links to be made to healthier lifestyles.
Objectives
Sport England particularly welcomes Objective 14 (leisure) which promotes the maintenance of a network of sport and recreation facilities.
| | Section: Vision [BULLSHIT]
Para 2.09
- Sport England welcomes reference to access to leisure facilities and the important links to be made to healthier lifestyles.
Section: Objectives
- Sport England particularly welcomes Objective 14 (leisure).
| | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>SPECIFIC COMMENTS
4. Page 1- Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District in 2025 - Given the AONB forms ? of SCDC’s area and has a large part to play in many of the interests of the area, particularly the tourism (a significant component of the District’s economy) and environmental aspects, we believe the AONB merits specific mention in the District’s vision [BULLSHIT] statement.
5. Section 1.33 - The AONB Management Plan is a statutory requirement for which SCDC has particular responsibility as a public body within the AONB. The CROW Act (s89.2) sets out the relevant local authority’s responsibility in relation to preparation and publishing a plan. This same section states that the plan should set out the relevant authority’s policy for the management of the area and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it. As such we would like to see the AONB Management Plan specifically mentioned in the LDF core strategy, either in section 1.27 where the AONB is specifically mentioned or in section 1.33 where SMP and estuary strategies are mentioned.</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>- Page 1- Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District in 2025
- Section 1.33
- Section 1.27 </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Nick Collison (0999) Suffolk Coast and Heaths (0155) Association (Local) (0012) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | SPECIFIC COMMENTS
4. Page 1- Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District in 2025 - Given the AONB forms ? of SCDC’s area and has a large part to play in many of the interests of the area, particularly the tourism (a significant component of the District’s economy) and environmental aspects, we believe the AONB merits specific mention in the District’s vision [BULLSHIT] statement.
5. Section 1.33 - The AONB Management Plan is a statutory requirement for which SCDC has particular responsibility as a public body within the AONB. The CROW Act (s89.2) sets out the relevant local authority’s responsibility in relation to preparation and publishing a plan. This same section states that the plan should set out the relevant authority’s policy for the management of the area and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it. As such we would like to see the AONB Management Plan specifically mentioned in the LDF core strategy, either in section 1.27 where the AONB is specifically mentioned or in section 1.33 where SMP and estuary strategies are mentioned. | | - Page 1- Vision [BULLSHIT] of the District in 2025
- Section 1.33
- Section 1.27 | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>6. Objective 6 - Tourism - We welcome [BULLSHIT] the acknowledgement given in this section to how important the AONB is to SCDC’s Tourism objective. This illustrates the value of the AONB to more than just the District’s environmental interests. We also note the profile the AONB receives in SP24 (Tourism).
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Objective 6 - Tourism </td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr Nick Collison (0999) Suffolk Coast and Heaths (0155) Association (Local) (0012) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | 6. Objective 6 - Tourism - We welcome [BULLSHIT] the acknowledgement given in this section to how important the AONB is to SCDC’s Tourism objective. This illustrates the value of the AONB to more than just the District’s environmental interests. We also note the profile the AONB receives in SP24 (Tourism).
| | Objective 6 - Tourism | | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mr & Mrs Carl & Rachael Banton & Bust (1012) The Coal Authority (0158) Association (Local) (0012) | | General Comments | | Core Strategy and Development Control Policies
Thank you for consulting The Coal Authority on the above.
Having reviewed your document, I confirm that we have no specific comments to make on this document at this stage.
We look forward to receiving your emerging planning policy related documents; preferably in an electronic format. For your information, we can receive documents via our generic email address planningconsultation@coal.gov.uk, on a CD/DVD, or a simple hyperlink which is emailed to our generic email address and links to the document on your website.
Alternatively, please mark all paper consultation documents and correspondence for the attention of the Planning and Local Authority Liaison Department.
Should you require any assistance please contact a member of Planning and Local Authority Liaison at The Coal Authority on our departmental direct line. | | Core Strategy and Development Control Policies | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options and Site Specific Allocations and Policies Issues and Options Consultation ;(your letter dated 12th December 2008).
EEDA receives a number of requests of this kind, as a statutory consultee [BULLSHIT], and our experience to date suggests a number of points on Core Strategy documents which your authority may wish to consider.
EEDA’s principal role is to improve the East of England region’s economic performance. Our main concern with Core Strategy documents is therefore that they will help deliver [BULLSHIT], and provide the spatial [BULLSHIT] framework [BULLSHIT] for:
• sustainable [BULLSHIT] economic development and regeneration in the East of England, and in particular,
• the new Regional Economic Strategy (Inventing the Future – Collective Action for a sustainable [BULLSHIT] economy, 2008).
Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development’, 2005 reminds local authorities that in preparing local development plans they should seek to provide a positive planning framework [BULLSHIT] for sustainable [BULLSHIT] growth in support of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES). The RES advocates a region that is internationally competitive with a global reputation for innovation and business growth that harnesses and develops the talents and creativity of all and is at the forefront of a low carbon and resource efficient economy.
In addition, Planning Policy Statement 12 ‘Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities through Local Spatial [BULLSHIT] Planning’, 2008 recognises that spatial [BULLSHIT] planning is a critical element in relation to economic growth and regeneration. The RES supports and complements the East of England Plan and EEDA supports the implementation of policies within that strategy.
It is within this context that EEDA makes its response. </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td></td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Juliet Richardson (1010) East of England Development Agency (0129) Unitary Council (0016) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Preferred Options and Site Specific Allocations and Policies Issues and Options Consultation ;(your letter dated 12th December 2008).
EEDA receives a number of requests of this kind, as a statutory consultee [BULLSHIT], and our experience to date suggests a number of points on Core Strategy documents which your authority may wish to consider.
EEDA’s principal role is to improve the East of England region’s economic performance. Our main concern with Core Strategy documents is therefore that they will help deliver [BULLSHIT], and provide the spatial [BULLSHIT] framework [BULLSHIT] for:
• sustainable [BULLSHIT] economic development and regeneration in the East of England, and in particular,
• the new Regional Economic Strategy (Inventing the Future – Collective Action for a sustainable [BULLSHIT] economy, 2008).
Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable [BULLSHIT] Development’, 2005 reminds local authorities that in preparing local development plans they should seek to provide a positive planning framework [BULLSHIT] for sustainable [BULLSHIT] growth in support of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES). The RES advocates a region that is internationally competitive with a global reputation for innovation and business growth that harnesses and develops the talents and creativity of all and is at the forefront of a low carbon and resource efficient economy.
In addition, Planning Policy Statement 12 ‘Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities through Local Spatial [BULLSHIT] Planning’, 2008 recognises that spatial [BULLSHIT] planning is a critical element in relation to economic growth and regeneration. The RES supports and complements the East of England Plan and EEDA supports the implementation of policies within that strategy.
It is within this context that EEDA makes its response. | | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Item 6 Tourism, to promote all year round tourism-- The east coast in winter has little to offer, what a strange idea!
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Objective 6: Tourism
Martlesham Heath</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | |
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Response from Sweffling Parish Council – considered by Parish Councillors and submitted by Monday 16th February.
6. General response to the 15 Objectives
The Parish Council welcomes the overall intention of the Framework [BULLSHIT] Objectives, and the balance they seek to strike between sustainability, economic development and housing growth. We note however that this needs to be supported by the settlement classification, and that any changes in the proposed classification might have significant effects on the achievement of this balance – that is to say, for example, that if a neighbouring village sought and received reclassification to local service centre this could have an unwelcome impact even thought the Objectives and Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies are sound.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Response from Sweffling Parish Council
General response to the 15 Objectives</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms J Hambling (1065) Sweffling Parish Council (0160) Parish Council (0001) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Response from Sweffling Parish Council – considered by Parish Councillors and submitted by Monday 16th February.
6. General response to the 15 Objectives
The Parish Council welcomes the overall intention of the Framework [BULLSHIT] Objectives, and the balance they seek to strike between sustainability, economic development and housing growth. We note however that this needs to be supported by the settlement classification, and that any changes in the proposed classification might have significant effects on the achievement of this balance – that is to say, for example, that if a neighbouring village sought and received reclassification to local service centre this could have an unwelcome impact even thought the Objectives and Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policies are sound.
| | Response from Sweffling Parish Council
General response to the 15 Objectives | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>The Land Group objects to the Core Strategy's (Objective 4) omission of the Ransomes Europark and its extension into Suffolk Coastal District, as a key opportunity to support the growth and regeneration of the local sub-regional [BULLSHIT] economy. The Land Group consider that the Core Strategy should take a more positive approach to supporting Ransomes Europark and its potential for expansion into Suffolk Coastal's area, to provide a new high quality strategic [BULLSHIT] employment site in an accessible location.
The Land Group propose that the paragraph 2.2 is amended to recognise and include references to the importance of Ransomes Europark and its potential for expansion into Suffolk Coastal District to support the needs of the local, sub-regional [BULLSHIT] and regional economy, along the lines of:
"Ransomes Europark and its expansion into Suffolk Coastal District will be supported in its development to meet the business needs of the Ipswich Policy Area, the Haven Gateway, and the wider East of England region".
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Objective: 4
Paragraph: 2.22
OBJECTING</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Mr John Long (1011) Bidwells (0081) Agent (0011) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | The Land Group objects to the Core Strategy's (Objective 4) omission of the Ransomes Europark and its extension into Suffolk Coastal District, as a key opportunity to support the growth and regeneration of the local sub-regional [BULLSHIT] economy. The Land Group consider that the Core Strategy should take a more positive approach to supporting Ransomes Europark and its potential for expansion into Suffolk Coastal's area, to provide a new high quality strategic [BULLSHIT] employment site in an accessible location.
The Land Group propose that the paragraph 2.2 is amended to recognise and include references to the importance of Ransomes Europark and its potential for expansion into Suffolk Coastal District to support the needs of the local, sub-regional [BULLSHIT] and regional economy, along the lines of:
"Ransomes Europark and its expansion into Suffolk Coastal District will be supported in its development to meet the business needs of the Ipswich Policy Area, the Haven Gateway, and the wider East of England region".
| | Objective: 4
Paragraph: 2.22
OBJECTING | | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Core Strategy Representations and Comments
The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives:-
1.1 Paragraph 2.05:
Grainger Plc supports the Council’s vision [BULLSHIT] on housing and the economy. The vision [BULLSHIT] is appropriately drafted to reflect the local and strategic [BULLSHIT] context and circumstances of the district.
1.2 Paragraph 2.13 – 2.17:
Grainger supports the Council’s objective 2 on Housing Growth. For Paragraph 2.14, it will be helpful to include the reference of the settlement hierarchy, i.e. Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policy SP2.
1.3 Paragraph 2.18:
Grainger supports the Council’s objective 3 on providing for the full range of housing needs within the District. Grainger Plc is fully committed in providing different types, sizes and tenures appropriate to the needs of Kesgrave and Suffolk Coastal District.
</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS
Representations to Suffolk Coastal District Council on behalf of Grainger Plc
Land at Longstrops, South of Grange Farm, Kesgrave
20th February 2009
Core Strategy Representations and Comments
The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives:-
Paragraphs: 2.05, 2.13-2.17, 2.18
</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Jasmine So (0816) CB Richard Ellis (0037) Agent (0011) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Core Strategy Representations and Comments
The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives:-
1.1 Paragraph 2.05:
Grainger Plc supports the Council’s vision [BULLSHIT] on housing and the economy. The vision [BULLSHIT] is appropriately drafted to reflect the local and strategic [BULLSHIT] context and circumstances of the district.
1.2 Paragraph 2.13 – 2.17:
Grainger supports the Council’s objective 2 on Housing Growth. For Paragraph 2.14, it will be helpful to include the reference of the settlement hierarchy, i.e. Strategic [BULLSHIT] Policy SP2.
1.3 Paragraph 2.18:
Grainger supports the Council’s objective 3 on providing for the full range of housing needs within the District. Grainger Plc is fully committed in providing different types, sizes and tenures appropriate to the needs of Kesgrave and Suffolk Coastal District.
| | CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS
Representations to Suffolk Coastal District Council on behalf of Grainger Plc
Land at Longstrops, South of Grange Farm, Kesgrave
20th February 2009
Core Strategy Representations and Comments
The Vision [BULLSHIT] and Objectives:-
Paragraphs: 2.05, 2.13-2.17, 2.18
| | No attached files |
|
| | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Core Strategy and Development Control Policies - Preferred Options
Thank you for your letter of 5 December consulting The Theatres Trust on the preferred options for the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies.
The Theatres Trust is the national advisory public body for theatres and a statutory consultee [BULLSHIT] on planning applications affecting land on which there is a theatre. This applies to all theatre buildings, old and new, in current use, in other uses, or disused. Established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 ‘to promote the better protection of theatres’, our main objective is to safeguard theatre use, or the potential for such use but we also provide expert advice on design, conservation, property and planning matters to theatre operators, local authorities and official bodies.
Firstly, as this document and the Sustainability Appraisal are on your website we find it wasteful to send us hard copies without ascertaining if these were actually required.
Secondly, both documents are far too long, even for the preferred options stage, and therefore difficult to follow.
Objective 6
This objective mentions cultural attributes but it is not clear what this actually means. Cultural ‘assets’ could include buildings as well as vistas which would be equally important to residents as well as visitors. Policy SP24 doesn’t mention environmental, cultural or social ‘attributes’ so does not reflect the objective.
Objective 12
We note and support this objective but request a definition of ‘community facilities’ for clarity as it is not listed in the Glossary. Rather than item 2.51 which defines ‘infrastructure’, we recommend the term ‘community facilities’ be explained as community facilities provide for the health, welfare, social, educational, leisure and cultural needs of the community. In this way arts and culture will be incorporated in any policy that mentions the enhancement [BULLSHIT] and development of community facilities.
Objective 14
This topic is included in Objective 12.
We have looked at all the policies including Sport and Play, Public Art, Key Facilities, Public Buildings and can find no policies to support and promote your cultural facilities. The term ‘community facilities’ usually, but not always, includes buildings that provide for the health, welfare, social, educational, leisure and cultural needs of the community and we urge you to use a common term throughout the document for clarity, consistency and succinctness.
As we said in our letter of 27 March 2007, The Theatres Trust is particularly concerned that current provision of cultural facilities in Suffolk Coastal District is protected and enhanced to meet existing and new populations and that facilities for your performance arts are of the highest quality to provide opportunities for the greatest operational sustainability.
In its present format we object to the whole document as being too long, inaccessible, and too much focus on general policies rather than making clear where, when and how change will be delivered. There is a lack of clarity, coherence and consistency in the policies. It is unclear how this Core Strategy or subsequent DPDs might provide existing cultural facilities any protection from closure, decline or enhancement [BULLSHIT].
We look forward to being consulted on the next stage, further LDF documents and the Felixstowe Area Action Plan [BULLSHIT].</td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#CAE5D3"><td>Objectives: 6, 14 and 12.
</td></tr><tr><td>No attached files</td></tr> </table>"/> | | Ms Rose Freeman (1123) The Theatres Trust (0167) Association (Local) (0012) | | Vision [BULLSHIT] & Objectives | | Core Strategy and Development Control Policies - Preferred Options
Thank you for your letter of 5 December consulting The Theatres Trust on the preferred options for the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies.
The Theatres Trust is the national advisory public body for theatres and a statutory consultee [BULLSHIT] on planning applications affecting land on which there is a theatre. This applies to all theatre buildings, old and new, in current use, in other uses, or disused. Established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 ‘to promote the better protection of theatres’, our main objective is to safeguard theatre use, or the potential for such use but we also provide expert advice on design, conservation, property and planning matters to theatre operators, local authorities and official bodies.
Firstly, as this document and the Sustainability Appraisal are on your website we find it wasteful to send us hard copies without ascertaining if these were actually required.
Secondly, both documents are far too long, even for the preferred options stage, and therefore difficult to follow.
Objective 6
This objective mentions cultural attributes but it is not clear what this actually means. Cultural ‘assets’ could include buildings as well as vistas which would be equally important to residents as well as visitors. Policy SP24 doesn’t mention environmental, cultural or social ‘attributes’ so does not reflect the objective.
Objective 12
We note and support this objective but request a definition of ‘community facilities’ for clarity as it is not listed in the Glossary. Rather than item 2.51 which defines ‘infrastructure’, we recommend the term ‘community facilities’ be explained as community facilities provide for the health, welfare, social, educational, leisure and cultural needs of the community. In this way arts and culture will be incorporated in any policy that mentions the enhancement [BULLSHIT] and development of community facilities.
Objective 14
This topic is included in Objective 12.
We have looked at all the policies including Sport and Play, Public Art, Key Facilities, Public Buildings and can find no policies to support and promote your cultural facilities. The term ‘community facilities’ usually, but not always, includes buildings that provide for the health, welfare, social, educational, leisure and cultural needs of the community and we urge you to use a common term throughout the document for clarity, consistency and succinctness.
As we said in our letter of 27 March 2007, The Theatres Trust is particularly concerned that current provision of cultural facilities in Suffolk Coastal District is protected and enhanced to meet existing and new populations and that facilities for your performance arts are of the highest quality to provide opportunities for the greatest operational sustainability.
In its present format we object to the whole document as being too long, inaccessible, and too much focus on general policies rather than making clear where, when and how change will be delivered. There is a lack of clarity, coherence and consistency in the policies. It is unclear how this Core Strategy or subsequent DPDs might provide existing cultural facilities any protection from closure, decline or enhancement [BULLSHIT].
We look forward to being consulted on the next stage, further LDF documents and the Felixstowe Area Action Plan [BULLSHIT]. | | Objectives: 6, 14 and 12.
| | No attached files |
|
| | | | Mr Tim Holt-Wilson (1124) Geo-Suffolk (0169) Association (Local) (0012) | | District Profile | | Page 13
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE
1.27 The natural and built environment ….
Comment
Makes no reference to geodiversity among the District's natural assets. For example 42% of its SSSIs are cited either wholly or in part for their geodiversity features. The third sentence is very awkwardly written.
Suggestion
We suggest rewriting the third sentence and adding to it as follows:
Suffolk Coastal has a diverse landscape, including much farmland, which supports a rich biodiversity, and it includes many significant geodiversity features…[etc]
| | Page 13
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE
1.27 The natural and built environment …. | | No attached files |
|
| | | | | If you wish to print this page please use your browser's print facility. | | | | |
|