|
E-petitions - you can use our e-petitions
service to create and sign online petitions to Suffolk Coastal
District Council. |
In line with our
petitions scheme we will publish details of any
'active' petitions the Council receives here on our website.
For each petition we will summarise the subject of the petition
and give the number of signatures but we will not list those who
have signed it. We will also outline the steps we have taken in
response to the petition.
Petition 10 - received 30 April 2012
Subject of petition:
“I support the Save Whisstocks for Woodbridge Campaign. We
petition SCDC to directly seek, or facilitate, purchase of the
derelict Whisstocks site for the community, with development
appropriate for maritime activity, training and public access.”
Number of signatures: 2,823
Steps taken in response to petition: in
accordance with our petitions scheme, where there are 1,200+
signatures, we are required to arrange for the petition to be
debated at a Council meeting. As the petition has 2,823 signatures,
it will be submitted to the next scheduled Council meeting on
Thursday 24 May 2012 at 7.00pm.
Petition 9 (rejected e-petition) - received 25 April 2012
Subject of petition:
"We the undersigned petition Suffolk Coastal District Council
to: 'Review and reclassify site ref 830b in the current SHLAA.
ThIs site classification is incorrect and inconsistent with
others in the above document, this site should be classified as
unsuitable for building."
Reason for rejecting petition: the petition
relates to a planning matter and so is an 'excluded matter' by
virtue of the Local Authorities (Petitions) (England) Order 2010.
Other procedures apply (see para 2.14 of the petitions scheme)
under planning legislation.
We have advised the petitioner that the SHLAA is purely a
technical background document which underpins the Local Development
Framework (LDF) evidence base. The purpose of the document is to
identify sites in the district which are theoretically capable of
delivering housing. At this stage, there are no sites, from an LDF
point of view, which have any formal indication of development.
The documents which will deal with the site specific allocations
to be made in the district will be the Area Action Plans and the
Site Specific Allocations & Policies document. There will not
be any significant progress on these documents for around 9 months,
but there will be full public consultation rounds on the proposed
site allocations documents in due course and members of the public
will have a full opportunity in which to make representations on
specific site allocations in the future.
Petition 8 - received 25 April 2012
Subject of petition:
"We the undersigned are affected by the new placement of the
bottle banks and paper bin. Be it by disturbing residents in their
houses (too much noise affecting sleeping or cannot hear
televisions).
Shop owners being affected by having their deliveries not being
able to park or cannot park their own cars and having too much
noise.
Remove the bins now!"
Number of signatures: 21
Steps taken in response to petition: in
accordance with our petitions scheme the petition will be treated
as a complaint as it has less than 50 signatures. We have written
to the lead petitioner to that effect and advised them that the
relevant Head of Service will investigate.
Petition 7 (rejected e-petition) - received 19 April 2012
Subject of petition:
"We the undersigned petition Suffolk Coastal District Council to
reject the planning application for wind turbines in Levington
Village - application number C/12/0639."
Reason for rejecting petition: the petition
relates to a planning matter and so is an 'excluded matter' by
virtue of the Local Authorities (Petitions) (England) Order 2010.
Other procedures apply (see para 2.14 of the petitions scheme)
under planning legislation. We have advised the member of the
public concerned of other ways that representations can be
made.
Petition 6 - received 25 January 2012
Subject of petition:
“We, the undersigned ask the Suffolk Coastal District Council to
change the name of the new Bloor Homes development in Hollesley
from Swallows Close to Mills Close. This reflects the long history
of W.J. Mills on this site.”
Number of signatures: 259
Petition 5 (currently a live e-petition)
Subject of petition:
"We the undersigned petition Suffolk Coastal District Council to
immediately cease all forms of deforestation and destruction of
existing woodland habitat at this unique site, and engage fully and
constructively with the sites current users, in order to preserve
this vital local amenity area as a mixture of woodland and
heathland, free from restrictions for future generations."
Petition closes 28 May 2012.
Petition 4 - received 7 June 2011
Subject of petition:
“We the Undersigned petition Suffolk Coastal District Council to
take action when complaints are received about the noise pollution
created by the illegal Traveller encampment at Sutton Heath”
Number of signatures: 139
Steps taken in response to petition: the
petition has been passed to Councillor Andrew Nunn, the relevant
Portfolio Holder on the Council’s Cabinet, and Phil Gore, the
Council’s Head of Environmental Services, in order for them to
draft a substantive response, setting out the authority’s views
about the request in the petition.
Petition 3 - received 29 November 2010
Subject of petition:
Requested that Suffolk Coastal District Council freezes ground
rent (including the over sizing premium) for beach huts at
Brackenbury Cliffs and Brackenbury Fort, Felixstowe at the current
ground rent levels for 2010/11 for a minimum of three years and
thereafter any increase in ground rent limited to a maximum of 2½%
for a minimum of five years.
Number of signatures: 250
Steps taken in response to petition: this is
not a valid petition for the purposes of the Council's petition
scheme, as none of the signatories had put their name and addresses
on it. Our duty is to acknowledge only and to advise the petitioner
what the Council has done or proposes to do in response to the
petition.
The petitioner will be receiving a formal response from the
Council’s Portfolio Holder, Councillor Colin Hart. Beyond that, the
Council does not have to take any other formal steps in response to
the petition.
Petition 2 - received 26 November 2010
Subject of petition:
“We, the undersigned, are against the building of a new town on
the land adjacent to BT Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath,
Suffolk”.
“We wish Suffolk Coastal District Council to reject the BT
planning application and to fully examine alternative housing
strategies for the district”.
Number of signatures: 3,898
Steps taken in response to petition: the
petition relates to a planning matter and so is an 'excluded
matter' by virtue of the Local Authorities (Petitions) (England)
Order 2010. Other procedures apply (see para 2.14 of the petitions
scheme) under planning legislation. Our duty is to acknowledge
only. However, the petition and covering letter, setting out the
petitioners concerns, have been noted and copied to the Head of
Planning Services.
Petition 1 - received 27 May 2010
Subject of petition:
Against any development at Pipe's Field, Martlesham, an open
piece of land used by local residents for walking etc.
Number of signatures: 80
Steps taken in response to petition: the
petition relates to a planning matter and so is an 'excluded
matter' by virtue of the Local Authorities (Petitions) (England)
Order 2010. Other procedures apply (see para 2.14 of the petitions
scheme) under planning legislation. Our duty is to acknowledge
only. However, the petition and covering letter, setting out the
petitioners concerns, have been noted and copied to the Head of
Planning Services.