Object

Representation ID: 24238

Received: 23/11/2015

Respondent: Mrs Anne-Marie Stewart

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are disappointed that the main issues raised at the last consultation meeting have not been addressed. The entire Northern Fringe Development will be high risk due to severe traffic congestion, poor air quality and lack of sewage infrastructure. Good quality farm land, essential for food for the future will be concreted over. Also, the hospital is already over-stretched. The assessment of housing need has not been updated and there seem to be obstacles to jobs growth identified by a report by Peter Brett Associates in December 2014.

Object

Representation ID: 24239

Received: 23/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Richard Stewart

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are disappointed that the main issues raised at the last consultation meeting have not been addressed. The entire Northern Fringe Development will be high risk due to severe traffic congestion, poor air quality and lack of sewage infrastructure. Good quality farm land, essential for food for the future will be concreted over. Also, the hospital is already over-stretched. The assessment of housing need has not been updated and there seem to be obstacles to jobs growth identified by a report by Peter Brett Associates in December 2014.

Object

Representation ID: 24249

Received: 20/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Stewart Quantrill

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are concerned that very few of the earlier representations have not been incorporated into the amended documents. There is little point in having a public consultation if the majority of valid concerns are ignored.

The allocation of the Northern Fringe without considering the total effect of the traffic congestion that will result will not add to the "Ipswich Vision". The housing should be phased to trigger additional road capacity by way of a northern bypass. The Wet Dock Crossing will not assist congestion in north Ipswich. The road capacity will not be achieved with improvements to existing junctions/traffic lights.

Object

Representation ID: 24250

Received: 20/11/2015

Respondent: Mrs Linda Quantrill

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are concerned that very few of the earlier representations have not been incorporated into the amended documents. There is little point in having a public consultation if the majority of valid concerns are ignored.

The allocation of the Northern Fringe without considering the total effect of the traffic congestion that will result will not add to the "Ipswich Vision". The housing should be phased to trigger additional road capacity by way of a northern bypass. The Wet Dock Crossing will not assist congestion in north Ipswich. The road capacity will not be achieved with improvements to existing junctions/traffic lights.

Object

Representation ID: 24253

Received: 21/11/2015

Respondent: Chris O'Brien

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Writing to let you know that myself and family strongly object to the Northern Fringe proposal and of disgust at the way IBC has completely failed to address the substantial number of key issues raised during previous consultation, without offering any explanation.

The Northern Fringe is currently one of the most beautiful open spaces within easy reach of Ipswich. To develop it will be to spoil it beyond repair and deny thousands of residents easy access to the countryside.

Believe that the environmental consequences (including traffic, sewage and lack of natural space) of damaging this area will be extremely negative.

Object

Representation ID: 24255

Received: 22/11/2015

Respondent: Mr George Duncan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Disappointed that the documents fail to address the main concerns raised on the previous proposals; which were on the need and cost of basic infrastructure.

The existing road network is close to maximum capacity. Only solution is for a northern bypass. This would also overcome difficulties with the Orwell Bridge.

Ignoring problems associated with site drainage will place additional burdens on residents, and cause chaos on the route needed for new drainage.

The viability and sustainability of this development should be reassessed, especially given the lack of effort to co-ordinate with neighbouring authorities on matters such as housing and jobs.

Object

Representation ID: 24256

Received: 22/11/2015

Respondent: Verna H Duncan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It appears that we are going over old ground. Issues that were raised in previous consultations have not been addressed. Without addressing these issues this area could be turned into a 'tip' to live in - unhealthy, noisy, dangerous.

The traffic in the north of Ipswich regularly at peak times is at maximum. Before any more houses are built, a north bypass is needed. Will also solve air quality problems.

The sewage problem need to be addressed before any houses are built. More local jobs are also needed .

Object

Representation ID: 24263

Received: 23/11/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Statement of Consultation doesn't accurately capture issues raised, including uncertainty over deliverability of allocating the entire Northern Fringe due to traffic congestion, air quality impacts and lack of sewage infrastructure. Failure to address cumulative needs for infrastructure including roads, sewage and health/social care.
Allocating in entirety may exacerbate flooding - should be shown on Map 2. High risk strategy, should be phased. Appendix 5 should reflect issues. Impacts of public sector job losses, income:house price ratios, impacts on Suffolk Coastal villages, Housing and Planning Bill, real reasons for pre-submission main modifications, current planning application and alternatives also should be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 24271

Received: 20/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Colin Girling

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As a member of the Northern Fringe Protection Group, I am extremely disturbed to learn that key issues raised in the last consultation have been ignored, no explanation has been offered for this. Allocating the entire Ipswich Northern Fringe is a high risk strategy, as delivery may not be viable. There has been failure to address cumulative infrastructure needs and a lack of cross border co-operation on jobs and housing. Housing need data has not been updated. Obstacles identified through the Peter Brett report have not been addressed, nor has the impact of the sugar beet factory been considered.

Object

Representation ID: 24272

Received: 20/11/2015

Respondent: Mrs Ann Stonebridge

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are very disappointed to learn that our key issues raised in our previous letters appear to have been totally ignored. No explanation has been put forward as to why 1090 letters from local people have been ignored, raising a total of 9325 submissions. We can only assume that the scheme is to be 'steam rollered' through at any cost regardless of anyone's opinions. By totally ignoring public concerns, sadly our confidence in local democracy has fallen to zero.

Object

Representation ID: 24273

Received: 20/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Peter Stonebridge

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are very disappointed to learn that our key issues raised in our previous letters appear to have been totally ignored. No explanation has been put forward as to why 1090 letters have been ignored, raising a total of 9325 submissions. We can only assume that the scheme is to be 'steam rollered' through at any cost regardless of anyone's opinions. By totally ignoring public concerns, sadly our confidence in local democracy has fallen to zero.

Object

Representation ID: 24274

Received: 20/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Roger Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am concerned to see that several key issues raised have not been addressed through the Pre-Submission Main Modifications. 1. Failure to address the needs for key infrastructure within the Borough including roads and sewerage both of which are at full capacity. 2. The allocation of the entire Northern Fringe is a high risk strategy since delivery may not be viable. 3. How will the Sugar Beet site impact on jobs and homes growth? 4. The assessment of housing need has not been updated to reflect the most recent information.

Object

Representation ID: 24276

Received: 19/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Peter Graham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I wish to express my disappointment that the key issues I raised at the last consultation have been totally ignored without explanation. Examples below: the application is premature as the master plan has not been adopted; phasing differs between documents; traffic assessment fundamentally flawed; traffic impact and congestion; drainage and sewers; relocating Westerfield station; cumulative impacts on air quality, noise and dust; open space and sports provision; poor and energy inefficient house designs; loss of trees, hedges, biodiversity and habitat; application likely to prejudice other IGS developments. By ignoring public concerns, IBC undermines confidence in local democracy.

Object

Representation ID: 24277

Received: 18/11/2015

Respondent: Mrs Rani Pert

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am disappointed that no answers have been forthcoming from the issues raised at the last consultation, and why the Borough have not bothered to answer these questions. It undermines public confidence in democracy? The main issues have been: increase in traffic, need for such a large development, lack of jobs and infrastructure, destruction of villages, effect on railway. Needs have changed now, with development to come near the Holiday Inn and on the sugar beet site. Tax payers money has been spent in acquiring this site on a loan? Develop it to pay back the loan.

Object

Representation ID: 24279

Received: 21/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Alfred Wheeler

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In March 2015 we submitted comments and it would appear that the Council has completely failed to address a substantial number of key issues including:
Lack of any effective policies from co-operating with neighbouring authorities such as jobs and housing.
The negative impact of the development of the Northern Fringe on traffic congestion, air quality and sewage infrastructure.
The failure to include the investment in the Sugar Beet located in a neighbouring authority which could impact favourably on jobs and homes growth strategies in Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 24282

Received: 21/11/2015

Respondent: Dr Jean Wheeler

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In March 2015 we submitted comments and it would appear that the Council has completely failed to address a substantial number of key issues including:
Lack of any effective policies from co-operating with neighbouring authorities such as jobs and housing.
The negative impact of the development of the Northern Fringe on traffic congestion, air quality and sewage infrastructure.
The failure to include the investment in the Sugar Beet located in a neighbouring authority which could impact favourably on jobs and homes growth strategies in Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 24285

Received: 23/11/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Eileen Warren

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Complete failure by you to address the viability of the allocation of the Northern Fringe due to the impact of traffic congestion, air quality and lack of sewerage infrastructure. There is a clear and urgent need for you to address the congested roads and sewerage facilities that service the whole of Ipswich which will be greater if the Northern Fringe proceeds as anticipated by you

Object

Representation ID: 24304

Received: 22/11/2015

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Paragraph 3.4 of the Statement of Consultation doesn't accurately capture all issues raised. Concerned genuine concerns and issues raised were disregarded. This includes issues raised in relation to the allocation of the entire Northern Fringe which may not be deliverable due to severe traffic congestion, negative impact on air quality and lack of sewage infrastructure. Failure to address cumulative needs for key strategic infrastructure within the Borough including roads and sewage infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 24306

Received: 21/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Stephen Pugh

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Despite a torrent of submissions expressing concerns with the plans for the Northern Fringe no substantive changes have been made. Would be less objectionable if Council had sought to answer concerns.

The Council is hell-bent on maximising risks by allocating the entire Northern Fringe. The need for the development needs to be demonstrated in terms of housing, growth and other developments. Will become a commuter suburb to other towns and cities.

Enormous costs are about to be imposed on Ipswich residents by the reckless manner in which the development is being pursued.

Object

Representation ID: 24308

Received: 21/12/2015

Respondent: Mr Martin Hore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to the omission in the main modifications of CS10 any adequate recognition of the effect of the Garden Suburb on road congestion in west central Ipswich. There are discrepancies between the statements made by the Borough and County Councils in this regard.

It would appear that no robust assessment of the impact of the Garden Suburb on the highway network has been undertaken. This is an essential pre-requisite to the granting of consent.

No consent should be granted until at least a route and funding have been identified for a new northern road linking the Garden Suburb and A14.

Object

Representation ID: 24322

Received: 21/12/2015

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The obligation to accord with the SPD should be expressed as general accordance, and the requirement to positively facilitate other development is not supported by national policy.
(Note that the full representations contain different context text for CBRE SPUK III (No 45) Ltd and for Mersea Homes Ltd).