ipswich.gov.uk

Object

Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Representation ID: 219

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Dr Benedict Cadet

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy CS11 is flawed with respect to national guidelines.

Policy CS11 does not appear to have been applied with respect to site IP261.

Full text:

1. GTAA(2013) has not been published, and therefore cannot be used for planning purposes.

2. "The site" (IP261) is not located within 1km of basic services (notably, GP practice and secondary school)

3. The site is NOT safe to approach - a safety assessment of the approaching road would have to be made.

4. IP261 does not suit Travellers needs of onsite or nearby business premises because previous business applications on Riverhill have been turned down.

5. The site is NOT safe for health considerations with respect to the proximity of the A14 (Noise and air pollution).

6. Site may need SIGNIFICANT spending in view of establishing appropriate drainage provision.

7. Site is NOT proposed on previously developed land.

8. Site WILL have adverse impact on local amenity close neighbours.

9. Site WILL have adverse impact on a countryside area.

10. Section 8.125 states: "The Council would not limit the size of new sites". This is not in line with the perceived preferences of the Traveller community.