ipswich.gov.uk

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5183

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Stella Day

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Residents object to the CS without proper consideration of the impact on transport infrastructure and the potential negative consequences of this on our road and the surrounding area.

Full text:

We are writing as residents of Westwood Avenue, in north Ipswich. The signatories to this submission represent 24 of the houses in our road, out of a total of 42. We have not been able to make contact with the remainder in the time available so their absence does not indicate their dissent from our comments.

Although we live on only one road in Ipswich, we have a good understanding of the traffic pressures on the town, as our avenue runs between Norwich Road, the main road into the town from the north-west, and Valley Road, which forms part of the existing north Ipswich bypass. Both are extremely heavily used and in order to avoid a congested roundabout, our road is often used as a 'cut-through'. Over the years, we have seen the volume of vehicles using our road increase considerably, as both Norwich and Valley roads have become more congested. Recent road works have, at times, served only to accentuate this problem.

Whilst we understand that there may be specific measures available to prevent the use of our road as a 'rat-run', we are concerned that Ipswich Borough Council's revised Core Strategy will lead to a massive increase in traffic that will in any event impact upon our road and our community. In short, the allocation of the northern fringe for housing, accommodating up to 3,500 new houses, without any significant new infrastructure, will place an intolerable burden on existing roads like our own and those around. Our own experience has shown how bad this can be; the addition of so many new houses can only make this worse. Whilst we accept the need for sustainable development and do not object in principle to new building, we do strongly object to so large a development being commenced without accompanying new roads linking it to major arterial routes (the A14 and A12), significant new cycle provision or significant improvements in pedestrian access. The SPD for the Ipswich Garden Suburb fails to include any of these elements and this revised Core Strategy suffers as a result.

In addition, it is clear that despite the warm words about the Ipswich Policy Area, the evidence shows that the dysfunctional relationship between the Borough Council and the County Council, as well as with neighbouring district councils, means that the duty to co-operate has not been adequately discharged.

Specifically, we object to the following elements of the proposed revised Core Strategy.

4.4 & Appendix 5.7

We submit that the Borough has not sufficiently co-operated with other public bodies. Suffolk County Council, in its representation to the Outline Planning Application by Mersea Homes for the first phase of 'Ipswich Garden Suburb' has questioned the provision of infrastructure in the application, which is based on the Masterplan drawn up by IBC. These objections have not been addressed by IBC in any material changes to the masterplan.

6.8.3

A housing objective of at least 13,500 new dwellings without significant additional new infrastructure is unsound.

8.105

A housing allocation to the Ipswich Garden Suburb of 3,500 new homes without significant new infrastructure is unsound.

8.108

No new roads other than those within the development are included in the Ipswich Garden Suburb SPD. This statement is, therefore, misleading.

8.181

No new significant infrastructure is detailed in the CS to support the development of the Ipswich Garden Suburb, to the detriment of existing residents.

8.205

The CS does not recognize stress on suburban residential roads, especially in north Ipswich, which have emerged as a result of increased traffic volumes. The CS does not recognize the impact of considerable new housing growth in north Ipswich on existing road infrastructure.

8.213

This paragraph is factually incorrect. Several routes could be included partially or entirely within the Borough boundary and have not been included within the IGS SPD. This CS fails to acknowledge that most of the additional pressure for road infrastructure comes not from the A14 or Orwell Bridge but from IBC's own planned housing expansion within the Borough boundary.



Yours sincerely,
Residents of Westwood Avenue

4 Richard and Helen Carr
6 Sarah and Ben Formesyn
7 Stella and Jeremy Day
8 Mark and Tessa Riley
9 Billy and Lin Brennan
11 Phil and Beryl
12 Derek Bowman
13 Sue Gill
14 Ian Alexander
17 Terry Read
20 Ken and Melanie Dickenson
21 Steff Hunt
22 Anna Caston and Phil Gibson
24 Rod Stone
26 Fran and Rolf Donnelly
28 David Clarke
30 Sheila Duerdin
31 Brian and Sandra Griffiths
33 Richard Goody
34 Barnaby Marshall
36 Richard Bissett
38 Jennie and Paul
41 Richard and Lynn
43 Tina and James Rivers
264 (Valley Road) Paul Daltry