ipswich.gov.uk
8.213
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5128
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: clive gissing
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
[Please read my full submission.] None of the transport problems identified under CS20 will be resolved by building a Northern Bypass, because a road built out beyond Westerfield is too far away. It would also blight villages and countryside. It will not relieve Star Lane or assist access to the docks. More beneficial would be an East Bank Town Centre Relief Road, and a new link from Tuddenham Road, through the garden suburb to Westerfield Road, Henley Road and the A14/Bury Road. A Northern Bypass would only help when the Orwell Bridge is closed on a few occasions each year.
Under 'CS20: Key Transport Proposals' the following motor vehicle transport issues are identified:
1) Highway capacity in the town centre, particularly within the Star Lane area/Gyratory system;
2) Central east-west movement;
3) Movements within and around the north of Ipswich; and
4) Access by heavy vehicles to Ipswich Port.
None of these will be resolved by building a Northern Bypass because a road built out beyond Westerfield is too far away. No road user will drive out nearly to Witnesham, travel around the 'ring road' and then back in to their destination in North, West or East Ipswich. Likewise, a Northern Bypass will not take any road users out of the Star Lane area of the town centre on any normal day nor assist HGVs drivers getting into town to reach Ipswich docks. Much more beneficial would be a version of an 'East Bank' Town Centre Relief Road/Bypass (see my representation for 'CS20 8.213) and, if the Ipswich 'Garden Suburb' is to be built, a new road from Valley Road/Tuddenham Road through the 'Garden Suburb' linking directly with Westerfield road, Henley road and the A14 interchange at Bury road (possibly passing in the vicinity of the old Indoor Cricket Centre and then adjacent to Whitton Sports Centre).
The only motor vehicle transport issue raised that may potentially benefit from a Northern Bypass is the 'capacity of the A14, particularly around the Orwell Bridge'. This is only a problem on a handful of occasions during a year when an incident closes part of the A14 and this cannot alone justify the building of a Northern Bypass. Any town or city experiences traffic congestion if a local 'A' road or Motorway is closed but this cannot be alleviated by circulating all major habitations with bypasses and Ipswich is no more of a special case than anywhere else (no calls being made for an Eastern Bypass for Colchester or a Southern Bypass for Cambridge in case of problems on the A12 or A14 in their locality).
When a Northern Bypass was first looked at a number of years ago no suitable route could be found. Nothing has changed and such a road has the potential to blight a number of quiet villages to the North of Ipswich, homes in the Humber Doucy Lane area of Ipswich and the wonderful environment of the Fynn Valley. This is some of Suffolk's finest countryside where hundreds of people a week get away from it all for a few hours to walk, cycle and explore nature. A major road through any part of the Fynn Valley accompanied by the usual urban sprawl strikes me as being an environmental disaster for the area and cuts off Ipswich's northern green lung (imagine the Ransomes Europark/Warren Heath run transplanted to near Tuddenham St Martin, Playford and/or Grundisburgh). In addition, the village of Westerfield would be doubly blighted with Ipswich Garden Suburb houses built up to its southern boundary and being hemmed in to the north by such a new road.
If the Council considers that an "East Bank Link Road is unlikely to be deliverable over the plan period because public funding is not available..." (8.214) then why is a Northern Bypass being considered as a possibility with the cost and time frame likely to be far greater?
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5130
Received: 02/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Shaun McConnell
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Exploration and feasibility and build of a Northern Bypass is essential PRIOR to proceeding with this plan. It is insufficient to say "council will actively encourage key partners". It must be explored prior to development of Northern Fringe and enacted via section 106 requirements. Recent data shows an increase of 15 minutes on journey time coming from Northern Fringe development alone, nevermind other areas. Current Government Transport Minister has visited Ipswich and recognises a northern relief road/bypass is required, as has Ipswich MP Ben Gummer and countless representations including neighbourhood watch committees and multiple comments on this issue.
Exploration and feasibility and build of a Northern Bypass is essential PRIOR to proceeding with this plan. It is insufficient to say "council will actively encourage key partners". It must be explored prior to development of Northern Fringe and enacted via section 106 requirements. Recent data shows an increase of 15 minutes on journey time coming from Northern Fringe development alone, nevermind other areas. Current Government Transport Minister has visited Ipswich and recognises a northern relief road/bypass is required, as has Ipswich MP Ben Gummer and countless representations including neighbourhood watch committees and multiple comments on this issue.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5145
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: The Ipswich Society
Legally compliant? No
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Whilst in support of all the aims of this CS, we are not in agreement with the recent recrudescence of support for a Northern By pass. This is unnecessary in normal times as the current A14 and A12 problems can be solved by re-engineering the two trunk routes and upgrading of the Felixstowe branch line. It is a distraction to more sensible, cheaper and sustainable solutions. However, it is worthwhile to explore the possibility of a Northern Relief road in association with the Ipswich Garden suburb .
Whilst in support of all the aims of this CS, we are not in agreement with the recent recrudescence of support for a Northern By pass. This is unnecessary in normal times as the current A14 and A12 problems can be solved by re-engineering the two trunk routes and upgrading of the Felixstowe branch line. It is a distraction to more sensible, cheaper and sustainable solutions. However, it is worthwhile to explore the possibility of a Northern Relief road in association with the Ipswich Garden suburb .
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5182
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: Parliament
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This paragraph is factually inaccurate on a number of levels:
- A Wet Dock Crossing is not an alternative to a northern bypass, which addresses different traffic pressures.
- A northern bypass is principally needed to relieve local traffic congestion in north Ipswich resulting from planned housing development, not from very very disruptive but occasional closures of the Orwell Bridge.
- Modest proposals for a northern bypass could be accommodated partially or entirely within the Borough boundary.
This paragraph is factually inaccurate on a number of levels:
- A Wet Dock Crossing is not an alternative to a northern bypass, which addresses different traffic pressures.
- A northern bypass is principally needed to relieve local traffic congestion in north Ipswich resulting from planned housing development, not from very very disruptive but occasional closures of the Orwell Bridge.
- Modest proposals for a northern bypass could be accommodated partially or entirely within the Borough boundary.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5232
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Martin Hore
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Recognition of the need for a bypass to address traffic demands of housing growth in North Ipswich is welcome. However, there is nothing to indicate that consent to developments in the Garden Suburb will be conditional on road improvements of this nature.
Strong representations in the earlier consultation re the effect on traffic congestion in other parts of Ipswich have been ignored. Specifically the effect on the Norwich Road, Valley Road, Chevallier Street, and Yarmouth Road junctions which are already over-congested and a designated AQMA
Recognition of the need for a bypass to address traffic demands of housing growth in North Ipswich is welcome. However, there is nothing to indicate that consent to developments in the Garden Suburb will be conditional on road improvements of this nature.
Strong representations in the earlier consultation re the effect on traffic congestion in other parts of Ipswich have been ignored. Specifically the effect on the Norwich Road, Valley Road, Chevallier Street, and Yarmouth Road junctions which are already over-congested and a designated AQMA
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5432
Received: 03/03/2015
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Number of people: 323
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Support the inclusion of paragraph 8.213 however disagree that it is not practical to include such a route in the strategy. In our opinion without some form of northern bypass the development of the Ipswich Garden Suburb is unsustainable and should not be supported due to traffic congestion and the potential damaging impact on air quality. Without the northern bypass or link road the CS is unsound and should be rejected.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5541
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Unless substantive evidence of progress on planning for a northern bypass can be demonstrated, paragraph 8.213 is simply an aspirational remark and should be deleted. Paragraph 8.213 continues to raise the prospect of a northern bypass, which has been under consideration for decades, but has limited prospect of delivery in the absence a delivery mechanism. If it were to be brought forward, it would be a significant influence on Ipswich's development strategy, including IGS. Therefore, the Council should be careful in pushing the agenda for a bypass without there being a more certain prospect of this option being properly investigated.
See attached.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5716
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
SSOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points on 8.213 [CS20]. Support the inclusion of paragraph 8.213 however disagree that it is not practical to include such a route in the strategy. In our opinion without some form of northern bypass the development of the Ipswich Garden Suburb is unsustainable and should not be supported due to traffic congestion and the potential damaging impact on air quality. Without the northern bypass or link road the CS is unsound and should be rejected.
See attached.