Issues? For the purposes of the JLP, settlement boundaries have been re-drawn on the basis of the current built-form and a number of additional principles addressing issues such as using physical boundaries, treatment of employment land, playing fields, churches etc. However, the new boundaries have also been drawn to include ‘allocated [planning] sites and current planning permissions granted before 31 March 2017’. There is no requirement that development has started or is due to start on such sites. Suggested response to question 75: No. Further thought needs to be given to planning consents that have been granted but not yet delivered. Extensions to a settlement boundary are inappropriate if existing permissions have not been delivered. Suggested response to question 76: Not that we are currently aware of. Suggested response to question 77: No. A determination of settlement on the basis purely of numbers is The setting and historical purpose of any collection of houses is important; for example, a collection of farm workers cottages located in the countryside should not necessarily establish a basis for a larger settlement. The existence of ‘community’ is also important. Potential Land for Development Consultation question 78: Do you consider the sites identified to be appropriate for allocation or inclusion within the settlement boundary? (please explain why and quote the settlement and site reference numbers) Consultation question 79: Are there any other sites / areas which would be appropriate for allocation? (If yes, please provide further information and complete a site submission form.) Overview The JLP will identify and allocate land sufficient to meet the Districts’ development needs and requirements. The location of the allocations will depend on the ‘spatial distribution’ (i.e. whether they make sense given the size and location of communities and access to services in the Districts) and the suitability and
Maintaining a green corridor along the route of the River Gipping (i.e. the Gipping Valley) Topography of the proposed site and water courses / drainage Provision of schools and health services The ‘creeping coalescence’ between Ipswich town and Sproughton village, would threaten the identity, if not the very existence of, Sproughton village. SS0191 Some of the site (specifically, in the south-west corner / adjacent to the existing settlement on London Road) may be appropriate for development, subject to the development of an appropriate scheme, the considerations already identified (highways, cordon sanitare and A14 noise, impact upon landscape, townscape and heritage assets, and biodiversity impact upon protected species and habitats), and further considerations comprising: The setting and the into and from Chantry Vale, which are almost unique Maintaining a green corridor along the route of the River Gipping (i.e. the Gipping Valley) Topography of the proposed site and water courses / drainage Provision of schools and health services The ‘creeping coalescence’ between Ipswich town and Sproughton village, would threaten the identity, if not the very existence of, Sproughton village. SS0711 Site not appropriate for development. In addition to those matters identified as requiring further investigation in the site assessment summary (highways, environmental and heritage), additional key considerations include: Maintaining a green corridor along the route of the River Gipping (i.e. the Gipping Valley) and the views to and from the river-side walks that would be impacted by the proposed site ‘Creeping coalescence’ between Bramford and Sproughton. SS0299 Site is appropriate subject to the development of an appropriate scheme. With respect to the current Wolsey Grange application, no formal decision has yet been published by the Planning Committee. It is our view, however, that the scheme as set out in the application is not appropriate and we support any challenge Sproughton Parish Council may make to any decision approving that application.