Wind Turbine Proposed for the Port of Ipswich

Associated British Ports (ABP) has proposed erecting a commercial wind turbine on land at the Port of Ipswich opposite The Strand (planning reference DC/26/03279). This local commercial proposal follows other historical local turbine projects and massive offshore wind developments surrounding the Suffolk.

ABP's application (DC/26/03279) targets port-associated land opposite The Strand to integrate onsite renewable generation.

Please find links below for further information on the proposed project.

/assets/Wind-turbine/Presentation-August-2026-V6.pptx

/assets/Wind-turbine/ABP-Ipswich-wind-turbine-project-15-07-24.pdf

 

 


 

 

 

County Councillor Report

Cllr Vicky Armstrong

Cabinet Member for Finance, Economic Development & Efficiency

Peninsula Division 

For Chelmondiston Parish Council

November 2026

 

LGR

We have been informed that LGR is back on the table following a central government review at an unspecified future date. More details to follow when we have these.

 

Community Staff Nurses would be saved under updated proposals for Suffolk's Healthy Child Service.

The recommendation, set to be considered by Suffolk County Council's Cabinet next week, comes after a major public consultation which received 1,928 responses and more than 1,500 detailed comments. The biggest concern raised by families, staff and partner organisations was the proposal to remove Community Staff Nurses from the Health Visiting Service.

Under the revised proposals, Community Staff Nurses would remain part of the future service, alongside an increased number of Health Visitors. Families with children under five would continue to receive all five universal health and development reviews. Health Visitors would carry out the first three reviews, strengthening specialist oversight and continuity during pregnancy and the earliest months of a child's life.

 

If you have specific issues regarding local county services, school transport allocations, or unresolved highways defects, please contact me with your relevant case reference numbers.

Contact:

Please feel free to contact me at any time with parish concerns.

Cllr Vicky Armstrong

Email: vicky.armstrong@suffolk.gov.uk

DCllr Potter's Parish Report for November

 

During Full Council on the 20th Oct we discussed on the agenda the Community Governence Review, there was support for the correct weight for every local parish in the overall decision making process, especially in the case of Burstall Parish which operated on a higher than normal number of Parish Council representatives and it was recommended and accepted that the overall number should be reduced to 7.

It is crucial that parishes in this current window have the opportunity to have CGRs before local elections next year, so that any processes can be formally arranged.

 As taken from the Equality Impact Assessment; Community Governance Review is a review of the whole or part of the council’s area to consider one or more of the following: Creating, merging, altering or abolishing parishes the naming of parishes and the style of new parishes the electoral arrangements for parishes* (the ordinary year of election, council size (the number of Councillors to be elected to council), and parish warding); and grouping parishes under a common parish council or de-grouping parishes other types of local arrangements, including parish meetings.*This review will not include any requests involving boundary amendments.

Any proposed changes can then immediately take effect after May’s district elections.

Also on the agenda was the updated proposed scheme of delegations which is where Planning Officers have the authorised use under this act to approve or reject applications and the new updated changes recommend that no more than 13 members can sit on a Planning Committee currently Babergh has 11 so this will not affect the current committee structure in terms of size

Regulations have introduced two new categories, referred to as Schedules, for planning applications, and have designated how these applications are to be determined. Full details of how planning applications will be categorised can be found in Planning applications categorised within Schedule 1 include:

•Householder applications;

•Minor commercial applications;

•Minor residential applications, up to 9 dwellings;

•Reserved matters;

•Discharge of conditions; and

•Prior approval applications.

 As set out in the Regulations, all Schedule 1 planning applications must bedetermined by an officer of the authority and therefore cannot be determined by aplanning committee unless it relates to an ‘own interest’ application (i.e. one made by an officer or Councillor or which is on Council land).

 Planning applications categorised within Schedule 2 include:

• Major housing applications (10 or more dwellings)

 • Major commercial applications (over 1000 square metres of floorspace)

• Listed building consent

• Reserved matters developed in phases

• Advertisement consent

• Tree preservation orders

As set out in the Regulations, Schedule 2 planning applications must be determinedby an officer of the authority unless the application meets applicable statutory criteriafor referral to the Planning Committee for determination.

Planning applications within Schedule 2 will be assessed on these statutory criteria through a system referred to as the ‘Gateway Test’.

For a referral to the Planning Committee, the Gateway Test requires that a Schedule 2 planning application raises either of the following:(a)one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, or(b)one or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.

This Gateway Test must be conducted by a Nominated Member and Nominated Officer. Both parties are required to agree on one or both of these criteria being engaged for a Schedule 2 planning application to be referred to committee.

Failure to agree will result in the decision falling to the Nominated Officer to determinewhether a decision on the application is made by the Planning Officer or the Planning Committee. If the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer agree that neither of the GatewayTest criteria is engaged, then the Schedule 2 planning application must be referred to the Planning Officer to determine.

So future Planning Applications will fall into two schedules after the 31st October, it must be said the new structure removes moreover the democratic function of what a Planning Committee is meant to traditionally decide upon, and as debated during Full Council this was made clear enough, members approved the scheme as there seemed little alternative to do otherwise, for the record I abstained from this vote.

There was also a draft timetable of committee meetings which was approved, as well as the new composition of those committees since my defection to the Conservatives this month, I can still serve on the Planning Committee but will no longer serve on the Licencing & Regulatory Committee as understood in the administration and it’s already nominated members.  I will miss this area of committee meetings but overall am proud of my contributions towards it having attended a number of Licencing Sub Committees across 3 years.

There was a motion to discuss community ramifications of the Green Party’s controversial conference motion Zionism is Racism but given this is not normal business at Babergh which came out of the discussions, this was not stipulated into anything further, for the record I contributed to the debate stating my personal misgivings and subsequent defection and believe this is cause enough.  I also believe this is more national politics rather than something that Babergh District Council needs to obtain going forwards.

I attended an open consultation in Wherstead on the 14th of October to see artificial representation in A3 size photographs of the proposed wind turbine on APB Ferries Land.

Although the structure will produce a more than sufficient number of green energy requirements, it is overall 150m tall and will forever change the national landscape of the Peninnsula area and although there is a system to detect moving flightpaths the effect this will have on bird life still hasn’t also been answered properly either and there is no artificial drone footage available.  Therefore overall I am not minded to accept this proposal and I hope this can soon be dissected at Babergh’s Planning Committee as it should be for an application of this kind.

The leader of the Council Deborah Saw has written as requested to the Secretary of State to denounce the undemocratic nature of the new NPPF process especially in terms of local democracy, as previously stated in the last Parish Report, District Councillor’s would no longer be able to call in a planning app which is an essential part of what all us as Councillors can help to best represent our particular wards.

The new planning regulations as already discussed here in my report are taking more power away from district yet are putting any planning blame upon the councils, although there may be some councils that are failing to approve planning applications Babergh is certainly not one of them and has a very good record of approval, overall disenchantment with the political system by residents is being risked, especially when it comes housing, whereby an 86% govt target is being given yet no guarantees these will even be built close to that figure.

Finally, it was good to see on the 29th Oct, reported news that the Freston Boot is being re-opened with new management.  This is a very old and popular Pub/Restaurant near to the River Orwell and I hope the new business structure being put in place is a successful one for the future.

 

Cllr Daniel Potter

Orwell

Babergh District Council