Object

Representation ID: 188

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Westerfield Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Information on housing development phasing needs to be included in Policy CS10, in line with statements in the SPD and the fact that the currently adopted Core Strategy states that development will start in the Southern Section. Ipswich Borough Council has also stated that 'The site will be constructed in planned phases. Each phase will have a master plan to minimise the impact on existing communities'.
Westerfield Parish Council requests that residential development phasing should be included in the Core Strategy as a matter of policy which will also correct current anomalies between the SPD and new revised Core Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 211

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It would be helpful if this policy and supporting text made reference to the listed buildings that adjoin the urban extension area at Mill Farm and Sparrow's Nest Farm. The Sustainability Appraisal Report picks up on heritage issues (see Table 2 of Appendix E) and makes recommendations for the Core Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 230

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed provision of a reserved site for a health centre within the Northern Fringe District Centre to mitigate the healthcare impacts arising from the proposed development is not 'positively prepared', 'justified', 'effective' or 'consistent with national planning policy' and, therefore, cannot be considered to be 'sound'.

Object

Representation ID: 251

Received: 19/02/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Terence and Linda Chambers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The houses on the Northern Fringe site are not needed and would cause disruption during construction plus air pollution and traffic chaos. Replacing roundabouts with traffic lights would create rat runs. The development would cause flooding in Bramford & Claydon with drainage being a problem due to heavy clay soil. Building a new sewer would create traffic chaos all over Ipswich. Important Grade 2 agricultural land would be lost. The development would place pressure on infrastructure, hosptals, social care, access to GP's, schools and lack of jobs. In summary it would be unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 256

Received: 14/02/2014

Respondent: Office of Rail Regulation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposals affect the railway line/freight sites. Therefore the Council needs to consider the following points prior to coming to the ORR with a proposal. 1. The aspiration to construct a road bridge over the railway - it is essential that the Council have a discussion with Network rail regarding their plans, particularly as gauge clearances are concerned. 2. The aspiration to increase the provision of passenger services to support new housing developments - as this would be a change in the operations to the network, the Council should speak to Network Rail, Greater Anglia and the DfT.

Object

Representation ID: 329

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mary Donovan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The projected 350 houses per year is over ambitious and assuming four developers on site it is considered more likely to be about 120 a year (30 each). There is also no knowledge of any viability testing with infrastructure and facilities making it potentially unviable. As a result this could mean the Council's plan is unable to deliver the foreseen housing need due to over reliance on one large site. The Plan is therefore not justifed (not the most appropriate strategy) , effective (not deliverable) or consistent with the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 343

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Given the proposed insertion to paragraph 8.22, we would remind the Council, particularly on the provision of sewerage and sewer network capacity, that in relation to the delivery of infrastructure required to support new development, paragaph 162 of the NPPF advises that local planning authorities should work with other authorities/providers to assess the quality and capacity of waste water and its treatment. The Council should ensure that a proper assessment is carried out with Anglian Water of sewerage and sewer network capacity requirements for the proposed Ipswich Garden Suburb, before a planning application is submitted.

Object

Representation ID: 347

Received: 11/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Mary Ames

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Development of brownfield sites needs priority over the Northern Fringe
The whole Northern Fringe should not be allocated now as this will have a negative impact on regenerating brownfield sites including the waterfront.

Object

Representation ID: 371

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support the requirement for open space provision, the country park and the requirement for an SPD. However, it is queried why the requirement for "prior adoption" of the SPD has been replaced by "preparation" of an SPD which suggests development could now take place before the SPD is complete or adopted. It is essential that the country park and associated green infrastructure links are provided during the first phase of any development and are ready for use before dwellings are occupied, to avoid potential disturbance to ground nesting birds in the Sandlings SPA arising from recreational visits by Ipswich residents.

Object

Representation ID: 383

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Merchant Projects (Ipswich)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Northern Fringe should be the bedrock of the spatial strategy and appears more important in its ability to deliver housing during the planning period than any other policies, it is felt that the wording of the Core Strategy should be altered to reflect this; it is incumbent upon IBC to recognise its critical contribution to the future growth of Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 436

Received: 24/02/2014

Respondent: Dr Jean Wheeler

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to the Northern Fringe allocation on transport and drainage grounds. On transport there is insufficient detailed information about the traffic management measures that would be put in place for Lower Road and Westerfield Road. On drainage the fields currently have lying water with the water table showing. What measures will exist to ensure Lower Road does not flood after the development has taken place?

Object

Representation ID: 440

Received: 27/02/2014

Respondent: Mr Michael Freestone

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Pleased that there is a coherent plan for this area including open spaces and preserving trees and hedges. I have particular concerns about: the maintenance of footways on Westerfield Road; the design of the buildings; provision of adequate access roads and parking (including for visitors); transport links (could there be a shuttle rail link with Westerfield Station moved to this site?); and traffic bottlenecks further down the network i.e. Bolton Lane, Ipswich School and the Fonnereau Road/Crown Street junction which have not been adequately addressed. Also infrastructure must be put in place early on in the development.

Object

Representation ID: 596

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

CS10 defines issues which should be left to subsequent planning stages, e.g. amounts of land uses that will be delivered. This is inflexible and fails to provide for the planning application process whereby such amounts will be resolved through detailed master planning. Thresholds in Table 8B also cause concern ahead of testing through the application process. This approach has been accepted by the Borough in respect of highways and transport so should be extended to other infrastructure. It is premature to establish arbitrary targets and thresholds in the absence of any such applications.

Object

Representation ID: 619

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

BDC/MSDC are gravely concerned about the lack of employment opportunities on a development of this scale, in order to minimise commuting. The proposal lacks: employment opportunities outside the main education/community hub; mention of B Class uses at the hub; and opportunities for commercial employment generating users at the local centres. Most new working age residents will have to travel given a lack of opportunities within close proximity, contrary to sustainable transport principles. The allocation represents a key opportunity to provide jobs close to homes and provide further employment land. Without it the proposal will exacerbate commuting/congestion in the IPA.

Object

Representation ID: 686

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Bright Hammond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I object to the whole development framework plan on the grounds that the present infrastructure would be overwhelmed by the extra traffic generated by the concentrated numbers of homes and associated services. Too much emphasis is placed on what is hoped will happen e.g. walking and cycling rather than using existing examples of overcrowded roads in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 687

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Mavis Hammond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I object to the whole development framework plan on the grounds that the present infrastructure would be overwhelmed by the extra traffic generated by the concentrated numbers of homes and associated services. Too much emphasis is placed on what is hoped will happen e.g. walking and cycling rather than using existing examples of overcrowded roads in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 690

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Marian Harvey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The people of Ipswich do not want any more big housing estates built. The Colchester Road bypass is already at breaking point. Doctors, schools and the hospital in this area are brimming over and can take no more. Gas, electric and water supplies will not be able to cope; sewers around the town cannot cope now let alone with all the new houses already built. Where are we going to grow all the extra crops that will be needed when houses have been built on this land? The Council should confront the Government about these issues.

Object

Representation ID: 692

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Brock

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Garden Suburb should come after the following:
- there are sufficient jobs in Ipswich for those moving into the area;
- existing brownfield sites are developed e.g. Tooks;
- the present road system in north Ipswich has a major re-think;
- proper, adequate drainage is guaranteed for the suburb and surrounding neighbourhoods;
- local educational standards have improved, full employment is achieved, the town centre is thriving;
- all local authority housing is of good quality; and
- every unsightly brownfield site in Ipswich is put to good use.

Object

Representation ID: 693

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Early clarification of the quantum of dwellings to be allocated through the SPD [and policy CS10] is essential ahead of any planning application so that there is clarity on matters such as site layout for drainage purposes and provision of infrastructure requirements such as waste water disposal and sewer network.

Object

Representation ID: 715

Received: 19/02/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Terence and Linda Chambers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The houses on the Northern Fringe site are not needed and would cause disruption during construction plus air pollution and traffic chaos. Replacing roundabouts with traffic lights would create rat runs. The development would cause flooding in Bramford & Claydon with drainage being a problem due to heavy clay soil. Building a new sewer would create traffic chaos all over Ipswich. Important Grade 2 agricultural land would be lost. The development would place pressure on infrastructure, hospitals, social care, access to GP's, schools and lack of jobs. In summary it would be unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 727

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Welcome changes to CS10 and the deletion of the previous phasing restriction to post 2021 of a substantial part of the site. Support the principle of delivering the Northern Fringe as 3 neighbourhoods. This will help deliver a range of housing types and diversify the local housing market. However, the sequencing of housing and infrastructure delivery needs to be flexible to allow developers to respond to market activity and not restrict the comprehensive development of the site. Crest notes the reduced capacity of 3,500 dwellings and agrees there are no other areas the Council could identify for substantial growth.

Object

Representation ID: 744

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Ian and Helen MacNaughton

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are concerned about traffic impacts. 3.500 homes in this location will encourage car use and generate massive road use on already overburdened roads like Valley Road. Given that most residents will have to look for work outside Ipswich, more thought should be given to a northern exit road/outer ring road again and a traffic assessment should made of the whole town. Replacing roundabouts on Valley Road with traffic lights will create chaos and should be resisted. Roads through historic areas e.g. Christchurch Park will become noisy, polluted rat runs. Exits from the Northern Fringe should be more evenly spread.

Object

Representation ID: 745

Received: 09/03/2014

Respondent: Mr James Jones

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Without an additional access to the A14, the plans for sustainable travel will fail. The development will worsen motorist aggression towards cyclists/pedestrians. Assumptions about homeworking are unrealistic - economic sustainability should be considered and development synchronised with clear economic activity in Ipswich. Colchester/Valley/Norwich Roads are already at capacity and are a contingency route when the Orwell Bridge closes. The extra Northern Fringe traffic will bring it to a standstill and impact on emergency services. A northern bypass should be included in the plan. Also concerned that it could set a precedent for further greenfield development around the periphery of Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 746

Received: 09/03/2014

Respondent: The Ipswich Society

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This should be a high density development of 2 storey homes rising to three/four close to centres. Whilst the SPD encourages sustainable transport, we see little to discourage car ownership and use when travelling off site. Innovative thinking is needed: the railway companies should consider providing services from Westerfield to Ipswich station and east-west bus services should be investigated. Cycle routes into Ipswich must be direct, convivial, convenient and prioritised over motor traffic. Correct provision of car parking on the site is a major challenge in terms of number and location. Traffic calming should be designed in throughout the development.

Object

Representation ID: 818

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Changes made to CS10 such as allowing multiple starts across the Northern Fringe could have unintended consequences, e.g. leading to pressure on Red House before constraints have been resolved. Save our Country Spaces has major concerns about the changes to policy CS10 and supports the Northern Fringe Protection Group's detailed analysis and comments. CS10 is non compliant with the NPPF, as it fails to build a strong, competitive economy, promote healthy communities or conserve the natural environment.

Object

Representation ID: 822

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Revised policy CS10 fails to refer to responsibilities for the on going maintenance, liability and on going costs of key infrastructure e.g. the Country park, SUDS swales, and sports facilities. The new policy direction for management arrangements over such a large and complex site must be contained within the Core Strategy so they can be examined for soundness, safety, efficacy and sustainability. It could impact on viability and deliverability.

Object

Representation ID: 823

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The allocation of the sports park at Tuddenham Road before it has gone through due process is prejudicial and predetermination. There are environmental, safety and access concerns and there are already numerous sports facilities in the vicinity. There are already illegal land uses along Tuddenham Road which IBC has not dealt with.

Object

Representation ID: 825

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The perceived requirement to ensure a five year housing land supply should not dictate multiple starts - this is the tail wagging the dog. It is implicit in the NPPF that factors should be balanced regarding sustainable growth in the economy, and adverse impacts on the local environment and population. SOCS consider that 'sustainable growth' is an oxymoron as adverse impacts will undoubtedly occur in the short and long term on existing residents' quality of life.

Object

Representation ID: 826

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The evidence base is contested e.g. the modelling and projections of jobs and population. It is too imprecise. There is bias in timescales chosen and methodologies used resulting in too much uncertainty. Previous projections and estimates have not been realised. Ipswich has lost its manufacturing base and opportunities such as Snoasis have not materialised. Projections and estimates which have failed to stand the test of time are responsible for high youth unemployment and low educational achievement. Thus Ipswich has a low skilled and low wage economy.

Object

Representation ID: 827

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is a deficit of employment sites in north and north east Ipswich. The triangle of existing employment areas links Ransomes, the former sugar beet factory, Whitehouse and the town centre. The Core Strategy does not consider alternative employment land allocations at the Northern Fringe. The area will lose jobs related to agriculture without replacing with permanent numbers of alternatives. With home ownership at its lowest level since 1987 who will buy the homes anyway?