ipswich.gov.uk

CS5: Improving Accessibility

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 312

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5267

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: New Anglia LEP for Norfolk and Suffolk

Representation Summary:

Notwithstanding the current gaps in the transport evidence base, the Core Strategy and Policies Document's approach to transport policy appears to be largely sound. Policy CS5 supports a strategic approach to delivering sustainable transport and is welcomed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5488

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Andrew Fisk

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Transport policy, (CS5, CS17 and CS20) There doesn't seem to be any realistic attempt to deal with the additional traffic that will result from the Northern fringe development.

Full text:

Transport policy, (CS5, CS17 and CS20) There doesn't seem to be any realistic attempt to deal with the additional traffic that will result from the Northern fringe development. There are some changes which will increase the area of road for traffic to queue on, but they do not fundamentally address the problem of traffic movement. The roads to and from the development are already extremely busy and there does not seem a suitable way of expanding the capacity of the existing roads (Valley Road, Henley Road etc.) to accommodate this traffic. I believe that increased congestion is likely, which in turn is liable to cause more pollution both in terms of air quality and noise (CS1). Valley road/ Colchester road etc. is also the route used when the Orwell bridge is unavailable, I believe that an alternative route, preferably one that allows access to and from the new development should be undertaken as part of the strategy for this site. The proposed changes around the docks may make a difference, but they would need to be undertaken in advance of this development in order to make a difference. Frankly I see little chance of more people cycling or walking without the creation of local jobs and I do not see where these will come from (CS13).

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5557

Received: 27/02/2015

Respondent: Westerfield Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Ipswich Garden Suburb is located in an area which is away from the areas of main employment and the town centre. It is unlikely many of the residents of the proposed 3,500 houses will walk or cycle to work, and direct transport connections will only be to the town centre. So, although the need to travel will be minimised through the existence of local services on site, as far as employment accessibility is concerned, we doubt whether this aspiration will be met.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5570

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5604

Received: 25/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Mavis Hammond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy. On Henley Road there are queues at every junction and lorries thundering past. Congestion is far worse than it ever was.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5623

Received: 19/02/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Eileen Warren

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There are transport issues and the traffic proposals policies CS5, CS17 and CS20 do not address these.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5634

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Tony Moran

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The transport issues and proposals ref. CS5, CS17 and CS20 are not adequately dealt with and will result in many years of gridlock and adverse impact for both residents and businesses alike in the north of Ipswich. This will have knock-on impact elsewhere in the town as drivers seek to avoid pinch points. The plan will not remedy or provide sufficient mitigation against this.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5671

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Bridges

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5682

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Bridges

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5744

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: D C Norman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5754

Received: 02/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Brian Pinner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy. Fails to address traffic flow in the north of Ipswich

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5768

Received: 25/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Brian Pachent

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5777

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Pamela McCartney

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5798

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Yvonne Maynard

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Transport issues and traffic proposals - the plan is not justified or effective.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5805

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Philip Maynard

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Transport issues and traffic proposals - the plan is not justified or effective.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5813

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Creasey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See atttached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5819

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Creasey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5831

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr John Summers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5842

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Summers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5853

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Neil Summers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5864

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Miss Charlotte Miller

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5889

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: T Holden

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5894

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: F A Leeder

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5901

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: A W Parkin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5910

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr R Snook

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5919

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs A Snook

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5929

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: D Roberts

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5937

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: River Action Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5940

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Robert and Rosemary Free

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Representation ID: 5949

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Robert and Rosemary Free

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Full text:

See attached