ipswich.gov.uk
CSRMM18
Object
Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)
Representation ID: 24351
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Eileen Warren
Number of people: 2
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
5. CSR 18 The Travel Ipswich highways improvement scheme has clearly not delivered the reductions in target for use of private cars with the consequence that the adverse affects of the Ipswich Garden Suburb are multiplied. The soundness of traffic assessments must be subject to independent verification.
1.CSR MM4 para 8.70 co operation between IBC and neighbouring authorities in preparation of a new joint/aligned local plan is long overdue and no development applications on the northern fringe should be entertained until this is produced in order to ensure an integrated plan on housing,main infrastructure and jobs.
2.CSR MM5 8.6 and MM6 The latest UK government housing projection for Ipswich 2011 to 2031 is 7799 which demonstrates the flawed projection of MC ie. 13550, even the reduced projection of 9777 is inaccurate and there is clearly a need to objectively assess in cooperation the other local authorities on issues of the market requirement jobs and growth (see i. above) The same comments apply to CRS MM6 table 3 needs correction.
3. CSR MM9 and 38 Removing IGS infrastructure triggers from the Local Plan reduces there importance with no certainty of local consultation leading to watered down consequences and haphazard development with fractured delivery of essential infrastructure and enforcement of cost.
4.CRS MM10 8.108. The comments in 3. above equally apply to the phasing of development.
5. CSR 18 The Travel Ipswich highways improvement scheme has clearly not delivered the reductions in target for use of private cars with the consequence that the adverse affects of the Ipswich Garden Suburb are multiplied. The soundness of traffic assessments must be subject to independent verification.
In short the main modifications do not address the major issues raised during the plan examination i.e. critical infrastructure relating to drainage and sewerage and traffic congestion and air quality in relation to the Ipswich Garden Suburb.
Object
Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)
Representation ID: 24374
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Number of people: 100
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Travel Ipswich needs to meet its 15% target in order for the Local plan to be delivered in a sustainable and effective manner. Evidence indicates that the expected modal shift of Travel Ipswich has not materialised. It calls into question the validity of the traffic modelling to mirror real life experience. Traffic assessments underpinning the local plan should be subject to independent examination. IBC and the Highways Authority should implement additional measures to mitigate the impact on traffic caused by growth. The SA fails to take into account the risk of non¬delivery of the 15% target. Revised text is proposed.
See attached.
Object
Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)
Representation ID: 24527
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces
Number of people: 100
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Travel Ipswich needs to meet its 15% target in order for the Local plan to be delivered in a sustainable and effective manner. Evidence indicates that the expected modal shift of Travel Ipswich has not materialised. It calls into question the validity of the traffic modelling to mirror real life experience. Traffic assessments underpinning the local plan should be subject to independent examination. IBC and the Highways Authority should implement additional measures to mitigate the impact on traffic caused by growth. The SA fails to take into account the risk of non¬delivery of the 15% target. Revised text is proposed.
See attachment