See attached

See attached.

Policy DM34: Countryside
This policy restricts major development in areas identified on the policies map as Countryside to that which is necessary to support a sustainable rural business including tourism, or is a recreational use of land which retains its open character.
The policy appears to be based on the old PPS7 Policy, which took a restrictive stance to development in rural areas. There is nothing in the Framework which states that development in the open countryside should be restricted in the extensive manner which this proposed policy suggests. Instead, Gladman suggest the policy should take a more permissive stance. In reality, in its current form, Policy DM34 creates a 'presumption against development' in many areas between the existing built-up settlement of Ipswich and the borough boundary. The policy's supporting text (paragraph 9.214) recognises that "Ipswich has a tightly drawn Borough boundary so countryside at the periphery of the Borough is not physically remote from the urban area." Concern is raised here that "development which would be relatively isolated in terms of access to public transport and community facilities should be avoided" but this is too restrictive and ignores the possibility of sites in these locations contributing to improving public transport connectivity and providing additional community facilities. The sustainability of such sites should be judged on a case-by-case basis through the planning balance exercise.
Gladman recommend that this policy needs to be significantly revised to provide a more permissive approach to development in the open countryside. We suggest the following rewording to this element of the policy:
"Development in the Open Countryside adjacent to existing settlements will be permitted provided that the adverse impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development."
The second part of the policy sets out that proposals in the development should, amongst other things, "maintain the separation between Ipswich and surrounding settlements"
Gladman believe that policies which seek to protect gaps between settlements are not consistent with the Framework. Gaps between settlements should be protected under Green Belt policy (it being one of the main purposes) and not through restrictive blanket countryside policies.

See attached