CS5: Improving Accessibility
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
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.
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
There are transport issues and the traffic proposals policies CS5, CS17 and CS20 do not address these.
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
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.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
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
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Transport issues and traffic proposals - the plan is not justified or effective.
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
Transport issues and traffic proposals - the plan is not justified or effective.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
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
Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.
See attached