Object

Representation ID: 5143

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: The Ipswich Society

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support but require changes. The Society has always accepted the necessity in due course of the development of these green fields for residential use. It is mandatory that the developers understand the land uses as set out and the requirement for infrastructure and multi-modal transport provision before consideration is given to any application. Additionally, there should be a paragraph reiterating the parameters of good and sustainable design; we must insist on an exceptional architectural statement on this site.

Object

Representation ID: 5150

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: clive gissing

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is unsound to allocate the entire Ipswich Northern Fringe when its delivery may not be viable over the plan timescales. To lower this risk the CS should include a plan based on co-operating more closely with neighbouring LAs to deliver homes growth. The Council's population forecast should not be based on a high immigration scenario, which is inconsistent with the policies of all main political parties.

Object

Representation ID: 5159

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: clive gissing

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The CS cannot guarantee the delivery of the Country Park in a timely manner and so demonstrate it will not adversely affect the integrity of a European designated habitat, namely the Stour and Orwell Estuary Special Protection Area. For soundness policy CS10 and Infrastructure Table 8B need to be revised. The Country Park and green areas need to be established before building starts as it takes a long time for such habitats to mature. If this doesn't happen then there will be no 'Garden' part of the promised 'Garden Suburb' for at least 20 years.

Object

Representation ID: 5169

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The location of the secondary school is erroneous and does not contribute to sustainable travel patterns.

Object

Representation ID: 5183

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Stella Day

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Residents object to the CS without proper consideration of the impact on transport infrastructure and the potential negative consequences of this on our road and the surrounding area.

Object

Representation ID: 5191

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Vicki Liner

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy to allocate all of the Northern Fringe for development at once is unsound. Brownfield should be preferred for development but there is no brownfield target for development. Both the stated policy to release such a large amount of greenfield land for development at once and no firm target for accompanying brownfield development is unsound environmentally. Also there is a risk that such a large amount of development will not be delivered in the timescale of the plan and may result in piecemeal delivery and which would have damaged the natural environment in the Northern Fringe.

Object

Representation ID: 5264

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Yelland

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to the Northern Fringe development on the following grounds:-
-The impact of significant amounts of additional traffic in this part of Ipswich has not been adequately scoped and there are not sufficient measures to deal with this traffic growth.
-The impact of such a large development on this part of Ipswich has not been correctly planned for in terms of impact on services / utilities and local amenities

Object

Representation ID: 5278

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: New Anglia LEP for Norfolk and Suffolk

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The County Council has no comment regarding the soundness of this policy, which appears to deliver the vision set out in the adopted masterplan. As set out elsewhere in the [County Council's] response, the County Council sees proper infrastructure mitigation as being the key issue for delivery of the Northern Fringe/Garden Suburb. CS10 requires that the Garden Suburb establishes a new library service on site. This is in line with the County Council's strategy for library provision.

Object

Representation ID: 5317

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Bryne

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The development will have an adverse impact on roads, health services and loss of countryside and habitat needed for health and wellbeing. Traffic impacts have not been considered. Air quality will be affected by traffic and vegetation loss. Access to schools, hospitals and GPs needs to be addressed. Drainage and flooding problems should be addressed. What is the evidence on the need for new homes? The Country Park should be available as soon as vegetation is removed. Residents are not being listened to.

Object

Representation ID: 5324

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We fully support the continued allocation of the IGS (CS10). However, there is no evidence available to demonstrate how the triggers included within supporting Table 8B have been arrived at, and whether they represent an "appropriate stage" for delivery. CS10 and Table 8B do not have due regard to the need for a "comprehensive approach" to the development of IGS as a whole. There are currently no effective mechanisms in place to ensure the delivery of infrastructure or to ensure a collaborative approach to development, which will compromise the deliverability of IGS as a whole.

Object

Representation ID: 5369

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support the allocation of the Ipswich Garden Suburb as a key element of the spatial strategy. However CS10 is not effective since it establishes inflexible and overly detailed policy requirements. The land use budget, land use annotations set out on the Proposals Map, and the details set out in Table 8B should be deleted. The IGS is supported by a draft SPD which provides a more flexible means of co-ordinating long term development. However, we have concerns that viability has not been fully reflected in the guidance. Including SPD detail in policy reduces flexibility to deal with changing circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 5390

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

Traffic from the Garden Suburb will have a severe adverse impact across the whole of north Ipswich and the town centre. Assumptions that use will be made of public transport, cycling and walking are not realistic due to the location of employment sites. Welcome the recent work commissioned by Suffolk County Council around solutions for the road network around North Ipswich. There has been no traffic assessment of the effects of multiple starts. The foul water pipeline from north Ipswich to the treatment works is at capacity. There is no mechanism to ensure timely delivery of the Country Park.

Object

Representation ID: 5416

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We support the allocation of Ipswich Garden Suburb as a key element of the spatial strategy but are concerned that CS10 does not provide for effective policy, since it establishes inflexible and overly detailed policy requirements. The land use budget, land use annotations set out on the Proposals Map, and the details set out in Table 8B should be deleted. This level of detail is inappropriate in the context of a strategic allocation which is supported by an already drafted supplementary planning document. The SPD provides a more flexible means of co-ordinating long term development across the Garden Suburb.

Object

Representation ID: 5477

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Ann Jones

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Ipswich Garden suburb has already received a planning application from Mersea Homes/CBRE Global investors. The standard of architectural design wasn't inspiring. The road layout did not encourage any form of sustainable transport for instance, NO traffic free corridor to link with existing traffic free routes. The only commitment to sustainable transport was provision of an information pack containing local bus timing for would be residents.

Object

Representation ID: 5479

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr James Jones

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The economic activity driving the demand for the Ipswich Garden suburb, is absent at the present time with absence of any statement of interest by organisations and businesses wishing to local with sustainable commute distance. Who will buy the houses? It is likely that Ipswich Garden suburb will become a commute enclave, contributing many additional vehicle movements.

Object

Representation ID: 5526

Received: 02/03/2015

Respondent: Dan Chapelle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Major concerns regarding development of the Garden Suburb. Increased traffic will make Westerfield Road more treacherous. Cannot see how Ipswich has the infrastructure to support such a huge housing development. Concerned that hospitals, GPs and schools are over-subscribed. Why aren't brownfield sites being developed? The Country Park should be delivered as a priority. The population figures are based on high and unfounded immigration figures.

Object

Representation ID: 5560

Received: 27/02/2015

Respondent: Westerfield Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy CS10 Ipswich Garden Suburb
Westerfield Parish Council is concerned over the effect the development will have on the rural character of Westerfield Road. However Westerfield Parish Council is supportive of steps taken to maintain Westerfield's independence, by ensuring any development has an appropriate physical separation from the village.
This council also supports the provision of a country park in the proposed location.

Object

Representation ID: 5576

Received: 25/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Cyril Eden

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerned over the loss of land for food production. It is presumed that traffic impacts have been carefully examined. Concern over potential traffic safety impacts for pedestrians on Henley Road railway bridge. Will this be a pretty garden suburb or a severely car congested small town? Delivery of the whole Garden Suburb may not be viable over the timescale of the Plan. The Plan should be based on close co-operation with neighbouring authorities. Population forecasts should not be based on high immigration. Delivery of the Country Park in a timely manner cannot be guaranteed.

Object

Representation ID: 5581

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

How will infrastructure be provided for 3,500 dwellings at IGS plus 10,000 homes elsewhere? Will the Country Park be delivered in a timely/successful fashion? The Multi-start approach is not sustainable and may cause environmental damage, loss of quality of life, the imposition of high urban densities, and loss of soil, biodiversity, heritage, trees and ancient hedgerows, and prime food growing farmland. It is unacceptable. Multi-starts may infringe Human Rights (case law re. freedom from noise pollution in Copenhagen). Need a moratorium from growth pressures so IBC can address long term issues, e.g. resourcing major road infrastructure. Endorse NFPG points also.

Object

Representation ID: 5606

Received: 25/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Mavis Hammond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It's unsound to allocate the entire Northern Fringe when its delivery may not be viable over plan timescales. How will infrastructure be provided? The CS should be based on co-operating more closely with neighbouring LAs to deliver homes growth. The CS cannot guarantee delivery of the Country Park in a timely manner and so demonstrate it will not harm a European designated habitat. Allowing multi-site starts will result in severe congestion and damage the attractiveness and prosperity of Ipswich. With few new jobs being created in the town centre, residents will have to commute by car to jobs growth sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5626

Received: 19/02/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Eileen Warren

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

With specific reference to the Northern Fringe and the Country Park, I understand that delivery is unlikely until 2025 and that you propose a multi start development and immediate removal of trees, hedgerows and habitats and farmland, much of which directly affects the existing housing stock on the perimeters of the proposed development There seems to be a conflict between existing Orders and what is proposed.
Sadly, the Council's Core Strategy seems to be led by developers and not the Council as evidenced by the inadequacies of the existing Master Plan exposed by the planning applications made.

Object

Representation ID: 5627

Received: 20/02/2015

Respondent: P A Lawson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There are numerous "Brown Field" sites in Ipswich and these have acres of land that are eminently suited to housing development without the need to take away prime agricultural land that is needed to feed the growing population of the United Kingdom
The traffic that will be generated by these additional homes will overwhelm the road network in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. (They struggle to cope with the current volume of vehicles). The proposal of tinkering with a couple of road junctions will not solve the problem. Major road works are needed to accommodate residents vehicles.

Object

Representation ID: 5632

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Dr I Hawker

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to the garden suburb on the grounds of loss of countryside, traffic generation and impact on wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 5635

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Tony Moran

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The delay in the provision of the Country Park with a multi-start development of housing does not inspire confidence that the park will be delivered and be pushed to the side with further delays. Removal of trees, hedgerows, habitats and farmland without immediate replacement by the country park is not an acceptable proposal - the development of the Country Park should be at the very early stages of the Plan. CS1.4 & CS10

Object

Representation ID: 5641

Received: 05/02/2015

Respondent: Mr David Gazeley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Traffic issues around the garden suburb proposal, by pass required prior to development

Object

Representation ID: 5642

Received: 26/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Rani Pert

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to traffic generated by the garden suburb development.

Object

Representation ID: 5653

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jane Catling

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Northern Fringe delivery may not be viable over the plan timescales. Plan should be based on co-operating more closely with neighbouring LAs. Plan cannot guarantee timely delivery of the Country Park and so demonstrate it won't harm the integrity of a European designated habitat. Multi-site starts will result in severe congestion and damage the future attractiveness and prosperity of Ipswich. With few new jobs being created in the town centre, residents will have to commute. Where will they park? The land is prime agricultural land. Ponds will not work adequately on clay. Brownfield sites should be developed first.

Object

Representation ID: 5664

Received: 28/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Helen Mason

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerned that traffic impacts have not been considered. Concerned that increases in usage on Colchester Road, Valley Road, Tuddenham Road and Westerfield Road will worsen congestion. People will not use cycles or public transport. More thought should be given to improving road links. concerned that there are no plans to improve hospitals or GP facilities. Concerned that schools will be expected to cope with additional pupils without any new schools or improvements. Concerned that the development is being hurried through, often rather secretly, without consideration of existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 5666

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Bridges

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Going north on Westerfield Road, the field adjacent the road before the houses on the left has always been waterlogged even after drainage improvements. Building on the land will worsen drainage at Westerfield which is lower. How will infrastructure be provided? Country Park delivery unlikely until at least 2025 with multi start development before 2021 and immediate removal of trees, hedgerows, habitats, farm land. This is not acceptable. The plan will not deliver the park successfully and in a timely fashion. The Council has not listened to local opinion.

Object

Representation ID: 5679

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Bridges

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Going north on Westerfield Road, the field adjacent the road before the houses on the left has always been waterlogged even after drainage improvements. Building on the land will worsen drainage at Westerfield which is lower. How will infrastructure be provided? Country Park delivery unlikely until at least 2025 with multi start development before 2021 and immediate removal of trees, hedgerows, habitats, farm land. This is not acceptable. The plan will not deliver the park successfully and in a timely fashion. The Council has not listened to local opinion.