ipswich.gov.uk
CS11
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
Representation ID: 101
Received: 03/03/2014
Respondent: Mr Barry Hall
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy CS11 and IP261 Site allocation are not compatible. The criteria for additional pitches should equally apply to CS11. It is irresponsible for pitches to be sited where access is unsafe and subject to pollution. The use could have an adverse impact on established business and settlement, and a detrimental effect on the surrounding open countryside. The total number of sites adjacent to the rural village of Bramford is disproportionate and impacts on the village infrastructure and community cohesion.
Policy CS11 and IP261 Site allocation are not compatible. The criteria for additional pitches should equally apply to CS11. It is irresponsible for pitches to be sited where access is unsafe and subject to pollution, where there is an adverse impact on established business and settlement, and a detrimental effect on the surrounding open countryside. The total number of sites adjacent to the rural village of Bramford is disproportionate and threatens the village infrastructure and community cohesion.
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
Policy CS11 is flawed with respect to national guidelines.
Policy CS11 does not appear to have been applied with respect to site IP261.
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.
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
Representation ID: 620
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy CS11/8.119 implies that Gypsy and Traveller sites may be identified outside the Borough, without any justification for this approach. Provision outside the Borough would be beyond the control of Ipswich as local planning authority, thus deferring responsibility for delivery to other organizations. This is contrary to a Plan-led approach as required by the NPPF. Permanent gypsy and traveller pitches could be provided through major/comprehensive development schemes e.g. Northern Fringe. That option does not appear to have received explicit consideration. Specific reference should also be made to the provision/funding of infrastructure to support Gypsy & Traveller development outside the Borough.
See attached.