ipswich.gov.uk
CS20: Key Transport Proposals
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5146
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. Two more bridges should be in the Transport Proposals. Firstly, a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the Gipping from the Elton Park site to Boss Hall and the Sugar Beet Factory site and secondly, across the railway to connect the Felixstowe Road "Coop" area and the Foxhall road area. Both of these would improve porosity and encourage walking and cycling where the alternative route is so long that inevitably people will drive. If included in a Policy document now, it will be easier for future planners to insist on them in future applications.
Two more bridges should be in the Transport Proposals. Firstly, a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the Gipping from the Elton Park site to Boss Hall and the Sugar Beet Factory site and secondly, across the railway to connect the Felixstowe Road "Coop" area and the Foxhall road area. Both of these would improve porosity and encourage walking and cycling where the alternative route is so long that inevitably people will drive. If included in a Policy document now, it will be easier for future planners to insist on them in future applications.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5179
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: Parliament
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
There is no support here for the following key infrastructure policies which will profoundly affect Ipswich:
- upgrade of the GEML
- upgrade of the A12
- upgrade of the A14
There is no support here for the following key infrastructure policies which will profoundly affect Ipswich:
- upgrade of the GEML
- upgrade of the A12
- upgrade of the A14
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5226
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: Associated British Ports
ABP supports Policy CS20.
ABP supports Policy CS20 and the wording of the DPD at paragraphs 8.207 - 8.214 as it relates to the package of transport measures outlined there.
ABP is aware that the Wet Dock Crossing has been a longstanding aspiration of IBC to provide for through traffic and potentially provide relief from town centre traffic congestion (particularly on the Star Lane Gyratory). Further work is needed to fully assess the feasibility and impact of such a new crossing (to ensure that the design of a Wet Dock Crossing maintains boat access through the lock and navigation along the New Cut) and to identify clear delivery mechanisms available to deliver it. In this context, ABP welcomes the approach taken in the wording of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review and to the absence at this time of specific reference to this proposal in Policy CS20.
ABP recognises the desire for a new crossing and will assist the Council in seeking to develop a feasible solution which addresses all safety, security and operational issues and avoids any adverse impact on port operations. In particular, ABP is concerned to ensure that a Wet Dock Crossing:
1) avoids an unacceptable impact on existing vessel access to the Wet Dock via the Lock Pit to the detriment of continued port operations, commercial businesses and the vitality and viability of the Ipswich Haven Marina
2) avoids any adverse impact (e.g. through traffic congestion) on Cliff Road, which is the primary access onto Cliff Quay.
3) avoids a routing which would affect the existing railhead into the West Bank Terminal
4) does not prevent the Port from meeting the stringent security requirements of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and
5) allows for navigation rights along the New Cut
Development of the Island Site will require access improvements but by itself does not require the provision of a Wet Dock Crossing. Redevelopment of the Island Site will most likely require road access from the West, via Mather Way, from the North via Bridge Street and St. Peters Quay and a pedestrian and cycle connection across the Wet Dock lock gates to connect to the town centre and the surrounding area.
These access improvements do not require the provision of a Wet Dock Crossing and, in our opinion, the Wet Dock Crossing is not required to deliver future development in the Waterfront area and the Core Strategy Growth.
ABP recognises, however, that there may be some synergies between the need for improved access to the Island Site and the Council's aspirations for a Wet Dock Crossing. In this context, ABP will support the Council in seeking to develop a feasible solution which addresses all safety, security and operational issues and avoids any adverse impact on port and marine operations.
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5268
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: New Anglia LEP for Norfolk and Suffolk
Paragraphs 8.207 - 8.215 set out a series of strategic highway capacity measures which the Borough Council intends to support. The County Council agrees that the delivery of a Wet Dock Crossing has merit and the project is included within the Local Transport Plan strategy for Ipswich. The County Council is already seeking funding from the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership toward progressing the project. Furthermore, the County Council will also lead efforts to investigate proposals for additional highway capacity to the north of Ipswich. This will be carried out with partners, including IBC, through the Ipswich Policy Area Board.
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5338
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
Whilst CS20 supports feasibility studies into a wet dock crossing and a 'northern bypass or a link road to the north of the town' at this stage such proposals can only be viewed as aspirational. In our opinion without the latter 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: 5490
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: 5511
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Ipswich Liberal Democrats
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy CS20 (P. 69). The Council wants to take traffic out of the Waterfront Northern Key and reduce Star Lane traffic. Alternative is proposed a Wet Dock Crossing (P70) 8.210. I agree that with 8.212. I do not agree that 8.213 should be regarded as an Alternative. Ipswich needs both. The Wet Dock Crossing will support the proposal for taking road capacity out of the Waterfront but without extra road capacity in the north of Ipswich the proposed large Northern Fringe Development should not be allowed to take place.
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5563
Received: 27/02/2015
Respondent: Westerfield Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Clarification is needed on the Travel Ipswich scheme to reduce car dependency by 15% over the lifetime of the plan. Is it just within the town centre or the whole of the borough? Does it include the Garden Suburb, which on its own is expected to generate a significance increase in car usage?
Policy CS20 Transport.
Clarification is needed on the Travel Ipswich scheme to reduce car dependency by 15% over the lifetime of the plan. Is it just within the town centre or the whole of the borough? Does it include the Garden Suburb, which on its own is expected to generate a significance increase in car usage? Where is the evidence to back up the policy objective? The Travel Ipswich on-line documentation states that the expected increase is 15% and the measures in the scheme give smarter choices to reduce car dependency. We cannot find any statement to say that it will be reduced by 15%.
Highway capacity concerns in the town centre are mentioned (eg Star Lane), but it does not mention the severe congestion on Valley Road, which will be worse when the planned 3,500 houses are built on the Garden Suburb in the Northern Fringe of the town.
It recognises that east west traffic movement is a problem but does not offer any planned solution - only continuing to make a case for alternative east west movements or encouraging key partners to investigate the possibility of new roads.
The policy should include the need for traffic modelling to assess the impact building 13,500 homes will have on the road network within the area.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5571
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. Endorse the Northern Fringe Protections Group's points also.
See attached.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5580
Received: 25/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Cyril Eden
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Traffic congestion has always been a key concern for residents. The CS fails to properly assess development and infrastructure requirements including the cumulative effects on traffic, air pollution, fresh water and wastewater. As such the plan will not be effective and is unsound. Updated traffic and air quality modelling should be undertaken and development not be permitted unless effective mitigation methods can be implemented. Freshwater and waste water infrastructure needs to be objectively assessed and key infrastructure listed in the CS. The risks to delivery should be identified.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5583
Received: 25/02/2015
Respondent: Ipswich Conservative Group
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
A reduction of 15% in the use of cars is not realistic.
The impact of the extensive additional housing on the transport infrastructure of the town also gives cause for concern. The current road network is already under pressure and will find if difficult to cope with the extra traffic generated by the new housing. Air quality will also be put at risk.
A reduction of 15% in the use of cars is not realistic.
The impact of the extensive additional housing on the transport infrastructure of the town also gives cause for concern. The current road network is already under pressure and will find if difficult to cope with the extra traffic generated by the new housing. Air quality will also be put at risk. The whole position will be made worse by occasional closures of the Orwell Bridge. The road network will need to be improved if traffic bottlenecks and congestion are to be avoided. The Strategy should, therefore, take a stronger line in advocating:
A Wet Dock Crossing to provide an alternative east - west route across town and relieve pressure on the Star Lane gyratory.
A Northern by-pass giving an additional access to the A14 from the development planned at the Garden Suburb and in the north of the town
There are no substantial transport proposals and there should be a mention of a possible access road onto A14. This is probably the most important issue facing Ipswich residents now, and for NF development and appropriate studies need to be commissioned.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5625
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: 5630
Received: 21/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Mervyn Sheppard
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The CS fails to properly assess development and infrastructure requirements including the cumulative effect of traffic and air pollution. In particular it fails to demonstrate that the Northern Fringe Development would not increase traffic congestion and traffic on the surrounding roads to unacceptable levels. The absence of new roads or sufficient upgrades of existing routes in North East Ipswich indicates that the Council is not taking the additional traffic that will be generated from the Development seriously.
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5639
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: 5654
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Mrs Jane Catling
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Traffic congestion has always been a key concern. Plan fails to properly assess development and infrastructure requirements including the cumulative effects on traffic, air pollution, fresh water and wastewater. Updated traffic and air quality modelling should be undertaken and development not permitted unless effective mitigation methods can be implemented. Freshwater and waste water infrastructure needs to be objectively assessed and key infrastructure listed. Risks to delivery should be identified. Following the introduction of the computer based traffic light control system, traffic is worse than ever. Difficulties are experienced in Valley Road and Henley Road and the pedestrian crossing is dangerous.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5678
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: 5687
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: 5711
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Mark Tweedale
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Traffic congestion has always been a key concern for residents. The CS fails to properly assess development and infrastructure requirements including the cumulative effects on traffic.
the lack of access between the Northern Fringe area and major trunk routes (A14 in particular) without having to travel via/near Ipswich town centre, further adding to congestion - the Core Strategy only indicates that a northern bypass or link road investigation be "encouraged" by key partners.
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5751
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: 5760
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.
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5764
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The plan seems to be oblivious to risk: dismissing the consequences of no clear strategy for East-West traffic (particularly around the wet dock area), dismissing the A14 and northern Ipswich traffic issues as out of its scope, having an inward-looking focus regarding traffic infrastructure for Ipswich Garden Village, ignoring areas outside the Borough boundary. The Key Transport Proposal is not sound. The proposal to work with neighbouring authorities and Suffolk County Council to investigate a northern bypass raises concerns as any northern bypass would result in Westerfield, and neighbouring villages, losing their individual identities, and becoming part of Ipswich.
See attached.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5770
Received: 25/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Brian Pachent
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. Hospitals, schools and access to GPs and social care - these services will cope. Infrastructure and services drainage, flooding, sewage proposals - there are already problems in this area, CS20 will improve matters.
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5783
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: 5800
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: 5809
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: 5814
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: 5820
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: 5837
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: 5848
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: 5859
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