Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Main Modifications

Support

Representation ID: 26696

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

SCC is no longer the owner of the WM site, which was sold to a management company owned by the residents. It does however retain a roadside strip of land across the frontage (with which to protect future use).
It is our belief that the current rights of way over the roadside strip, as currently enjoyed by the residents, are adequate to support additional pitches (i.e. SCC can prevent change of use but not intensification).
Therefore no comments from SCC as landowner. Other directorates of SCC may wish to comment from a planning or community perspective though.

Object

Representation ID: 26781

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Expanding an already established site provides a simple solution to meet need to find appropriate land for this type of housing. It also could give an opportunity to integrating new families or families who would struggle to find a plot to live on by themselves.
However this is not in line with the previous experience of SCC. In our experience, the more successful Traveller communities are usually smaller with the same families on them or close friends. It is our understanding that this is their preferred way of life as many do not necessarily like living amongst other gypsy or travellers in large groups. In larger mixed groups there are usually the more dominant families who try to exert control over a site, which means distrust and conflict amongst the rest of the families or even fear.
SCCs view is that careful consideration should be given and mitigations put in place if the expansion is to include families who are not closely linked to the existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 26782

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

The aim of 15% modal shift in this policy is supported. It is noted that thresholds for transport statements and transport assessments has been updated to align with new use class order. It also appears that the thresholds match the guidance in SCCs travel plan guidance in order to align TAs, TSs and TP’s which is supported. The TP Guidance has not yet been updated to reflect the new Use Class Order, however SCC would appreciate discussion with IBC before the policy is finalised to ensure that both organisations are aligned in the approach to using the thresholds.

Object

Representation ID: 26783

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

In general SCC supports this policy, however it requires an amendment. In the Statement of common ground between IBC and SCC, the authorities agreed to include information on archaeology and a requirement to assess this site. The information has been included in a new paragraph, which is welcome, however there is not requirement for archaeological evaluation within the policy itself. In order for this part of the plan to be sound and consistent with the policy for the East Suffolk part of the site in the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, a requirement for archaeological assessment should be included in the policy.