Support

Representation ID: 80

Received: 22/02/2014

Respondent: GeoSuffolk

Policy DM31 Conserving Local Natural and Geological Interest
9.167 should read
CGS are County Geodiversity Sites, designated on the basis of locally developed criteria. They are the most important sites for geology and geomorphology outside statutorily protected sites such as SSSIs. GeoSuffolk has so far registered three sites within in Ipswich: at Holywells Park (under an earlier RIGS - Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites - designation), at Christchurch Park (CGS) and Sarsenstones at Stoke Bridge Pocket Park (CGS).

Support

Representation ID: 422

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Environment Agency

We largely agree with the findings in the SA Report on matters relating to flood risk and land contamination, in particular opportunities arising out of development proposals to improve soil resources for the latter.

Object

Representation ID: 446

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

It is noted that the SA recommends that relevant policies and sites require new developments to be sensitive to heritage assets (e.g. paras 4.4.2, 4.5.62,.4.6.62) and we hope this recommendation can be implemented. Appendices F and G contain specific wording for individual sites in terms of heritage issues (e.g. IP172)which offer a starting point for setting out development criteria for sites. As with the main consultation document, the SA appears to overlook scheduled monument issues.

Object

Representation ID: 584

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Barton Willmore LLP

Objects to the assessment which concludes development would increase run off; there is no evidence for this. Any application would include a flood risk analysis and ecological appraisal to avoid adverse impacts. Also objects to the conclusion that development would have a significant impact on biodiversity and soil quality and would mean the loss of agricultural land. The Phase 1 habitats survey by SWT shows subject to mitigation impacts are acceptable. The loss of food growing land is not significant and the land has not been used for arable agriculture for some years.

Object

Representation ID: 711

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Natural England

We are reasonably satisfied that the Interim SA considers the impacts of the Site Allocations DPD on relevant aspects of the environment within our remit. We particularly welcome SA objectives to protect/enhance designated sites and non-designated areas of biodiversity. However, there are areas where the assessment does not fully address potential biodiversity impacts and mitigation requirements. The SA identifies some allocations with potential to adversely affect biodiversity. 4.4.2 includes mitigation recommendations which should be included in the DPD. Section 4.4.2 should also include a recommendation requiring that all proposals be subject to at least a desk top ecological assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 712

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Natural England

With regard to the IP149 Pond Hall Carr and Farm allocation the SA only identifies positive outcomes for biodiversity. Whilst recognising the proximity of the site to the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Ramsar the SA fails to acknowledge the potential for the allocation to have an adverse effect on this European site through increased recreational disturbance, as identified through the AA. Natural England advises that the AA be amended in accordance with our comments above and the revised conclusions and recommendations of the AA should then be included in the SA and Policy DM44 of the DPD.

Object

Representation ID: 754

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Against the existing Proposals map the proposed site allocations and proposals map shows the loss of designated countryside and conservation land off Tuddenham Rd in addition to the 3 Garden Suburb sites. The loss is unacceptable and unsustainable. No assessment of the increased traffic, increased coaches, impact on the humpback bridge and adjacent road without footway and rat running on Humberdoucy Lane has been made The SA should include an assessment of the change of use of the land;why has Hyder ignored this?

Object

Representation ID: 757

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Concerned that Westgates has no potential occupier, suggest more residential development here, also at Grafton Way with hotel too and at Cox Lane/Tacket St which should have a mall linking Carr St and Upper Brook St and multi-storey car park. Need for long stay car park capacity is questioned, the issue is access and cost. Increased capacity is at odds with promoting walking/cycling/park&ride. Suggested to reopen Bury Rd P&R and make long term parking short term. SA should consider impact of more short journeys on air pollution and 3 sites reviewed in light of Bury Rd P&R reopening.

Object

Representation ID: 758

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Policy CS17 deletes reference to Park & Ride assumed to be Bury Rd but site allocations DPD proposed extension of the facility and elsewhere in the plan there is commitment to re-opening the Park & Ride. If the P & R is not to be re-opened an alternative use for the site should be identified in the site allocations. Consistency is required across the whole document. Re-opening of the Park & Ride site is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 759

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

There is inconsistency over the density of Ipswich Sports Centre Hockey pitch site, an area of 0.6ha and 30 dwellings is shown and a requirement to meet the 35dph average in Policy DM30(c), but the allocation is for 50 dph. We believe 30 dwellings is unrealistic and out of character with the neighbourhood. The hockey pitch is classified as sport provision it would need to be replaced before change of use for housing could be sanctioned; current site access is also considered inadequate. The SA must take account of these issues and reassess accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 760

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

We believe the Council has an opportunity to improve amenity of sites near Cliff Quay for residential and employment users. The Council should aid the attractiveness of this site to developers by committing to working with Anglian Water to resolve the local odour issue. Further development in Ipswich risks worsening the problem. The SA should take account of this opportunity and recommend accordingly or if not Hyder should explain why this is not a good idea. We would like to see Hyder promote IBC generally committing to improving attractiveness of brownfield sites to developers.

Object

Representation ID: 795

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

IP256 Artificial Hockey Pitch. There is an error in the table, which shows an area of 0.6ha, an allocation of 30 dwellings and a requirement to meet DM30c. The latter specifies an average density of 35dph whereas the allocation is for 50dph. It is unrealistic and contrary to Policy DM30c to build 30 units on this site. The development would be completely out of character with the surrounding housing, and the site access is inadequate. Under DM28 the pitch would require an alternative to be provided before a change of use for housing is granted. The SA needs amending accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 796

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Table 4-6: The SA needs to recognise that the plan does little to improve educational standards in existing schools; little to tackle crime in existing wards, while promoting homes without jobs; little to improve health especially for those in poor housing stock; and nothing to redevelop/improve existing sub-standard housing. It uses obsolete jobs data and forecasts far exceed historic provision. Impacts on climate change will be negative and the potential sewage issues associated with growth have not been addressed. These omissions need to be rectified as a key objective.

Object

Representation ID: 797

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Paragraph 4.4.2. The following recommendations are required: most recent population and employment data should be used and forecasts should be made across district boundaries; a firm jobs growth target will help focus delivery; a better balance between new jobs and homes is needed with homes built near jobs; less reliance on retail growth and better alignment with NALEP growth sectors; a PDL target should be reintroduced; water supply and sewerage should be addressed; and more should be done to improve the lives of existing residents.