Comment

Representation ID: 24650

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Alice Martin

Social issues need to be a big focus of the plan moving forward. Current and previous plans have clearly failed to address the issues identified as parts of the town have become no-go areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 24691

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: RSPB

Agent: RSPB

The RSPB welcomes that the Council recognises the network of wildlife-rich sites, species and habitats; the need to invest in renewable energy; recognition of the need to tackle the threats posed by climate change and the foresight to extend and enhance the Green Infrastructure network across the whole Ipswich Housing Market Area (IHMA).
The critical element is an overall commitment for enhancing biodiversity and this should be at the forefront as an environmental issue in order to be consistent with the national planning policy framework (NPPF).

Comment

Representation ID: 24714

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Christopher Wrathall

Social issues (Ipswich): Need for enhanced, safer access for pedestrians, especially for people with disabilities, to the amenities, shops, offices and public spaces in and around the city centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 24839

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Ensuring security and crime reduction measures are a compulsory element of all planning applications.
Improving housing standards in the private rented sector, to include minimum security levels.
Provision of services for young people to deter them from criminal activity.
Enhanced provision of services to support people out of substance misuse.
Outreach services for vulnerable people who may either be at risk of being victims or at risk of becoming involved with crime.
Increased means of encouraging community integration, especially for communities where English is not the first language.
Means of deterring people from repeatedly committing criminal and/or anti-social behaviour (ie evicting problem tenants).
More effective use of powers to deter ASB/criminal behaviour in communal/public areas such as Jubilee Park, churchyards and parks.
Need to consider terrorism mitigation features in all developments.
Enhanced CCTV coverage across the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 24891

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: NHS England

Number of people: 2

Comments on the wider impact of planned growth on all local Health services and
infrastructure needs to be co-ordinated through wider consultation with the health
economy and CCG led forums established to inform the Sustainability and
Transformation Plan for the locality. The implementation of the plan will result in extensive transformation to the way that health and care services are delivered, potentially including changes to the physical infrastructure.

It would be helpful to NHS England and the CCG if feedback received as a result of this consultation to questions 31, 104 and 105 could be shared.

Comment

Representation ID: 24892

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the identification of the high number of heritage assets in Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal in the environmental considerations. However, what this means is not elaborated on. The 2016 Local Authority Profiles note that Ipswich alone has 457 listed buildings, 8 scheduled monuments, 3 registered parks and gardens, and 15 conservation areas. This is a significant number of designated heritage assets in a tightly bounded authority, reflecting Ipswich's long settlement history and historic development. It is not just the high number but also the density and significance of the heritage assets which is key.

Comment

Representation ID: 24954

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Yes.
Are Babergh and Mid-Suffolk prepared to work with Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal to address cross-boundary issues and deliver additional homes?
Add reference to increasing levels of violent crime in Ipswich and fear of personal safety (especially at night).
Falling house sales in Ipswich caused by e.g. stamp duty changes and people choosing to extend.
The poor coordination of utility works. A permit system is urgently required to minimise disruption.
Ipswich has sub-standard cycling infrastructure, which requires major improvement in order to encourage sustainable travel and reduce congestion.
Ipswich now has five AQMAs.
The need to create more high-quality and better-paid jobs to improve the economy.
Assess the impact of BREXIT on the SHMA.

Comment

Representation ID: 25001

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

We recommend that the issues are expanded to include the need to secure ecological enhancements as part of new developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 25034

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Falling house sales in Ipswich (50% over last two years). Population adjustments due to Brexit and shifts in population and local Ipswich demographic. Acknowledge and factor in the stark reality of the jobs and employment situation and trends within Ipswich. Factor in post-Brexit increases likely in food prices; food security and the need to grow more at home; the terrible loss of Grade 2 farm land in North Ipswich. Ipswich cycling infrastructure requires major improvement to encourage sustainable travel and reduce congestion. However, poor Air Quality in key areas works against a successful cycling, walking strategy and Public Health thrust.

Comment

Representation ID: 25096

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

AquiGen agrees with the identified Key Issues. In terms of Economic Growth for Ipswich, it is essential that the emerging Plan promotes and supports growth in key employment sectors. The business sector is an important element of the local and wider sub-regional economy. The Plan should also however recognise the importance of other employment sectors including retail, leisure, entertainment and recreation. Appropriate forms of economic development can then make wider contributions in the social and environmental sectors also identified in the consultation document.

Comment

Representation ID: 25174

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Environment Agency

Although Ipswich will soon benefit from the new Ipswich Tidal Flood Barrier, there remains residual tidal flood risk from barrier failure as well as fluvial flood risk from the River Gipping and neither should be overlooked. There is no mention of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the requirements and obligations laid out in the Anglian RBMP. This links to water quality, but also ecology and amenity. Overall, the plan should give greater consideration to the management and enhancement of the water environment.
The existing SFRA does consider the new Ipswich Tidal Flood Barrier and associated works, due for completion by April 2018. It is unclear if there is an intention to undertake a new SFRA, if so we would recommend discussion with ourselves with regard to this work. We are currently preparing new flood models for the River Gipping and the coast and estuaries. These are unlikely to be available until post-submission so they cannot be included in any new SFRA or the Local Plan, but they may need to be taken into account by developers in their FRAs. The Local Plan must also have regard to the Anglian river basin district River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) 2015. The RBMP is referred to in the SA Scoping Report, but it should help underpin and inform policies and approach in the plan. It is not clear if this is the case to date.

Comment

Representation ID: 25256

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

The Local Plan is too focused on residential aspects with very little regard to employment, environment and infrastructure. Ipswich has significant employment in sectors which are under threat when the UK exits the EU. Ipswich has a significant problem with homelessness there must be inclusion of a strategy to deal with this problem.

Comment

Representation ID: 25461

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Community Media CIC

Innovative use of older / unused / or seemingly not productive places rather than knocking down - we know first hand that using a premises for arts can generate revenue - I have friends in around 30 towns / cities across the country who all have 'repurposed' old spaces - like we could have with the old police station or the ICA building, generating studio and arts space, that brings tourists and revenue - the arts are a growing economy. Bring the artists and professional creative into the conversation. We have a 100 Strong professional creative network in Ipswich.

Comment

Representation ID: 25480

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

We do not disagree with the key issues raised, however, Ipswich's housing delivery rates have been poor over the last seven years - considerably under-performing against the housing targets set either in the RSS or subsequently established by the Council. Whilst recession has played a part, our experience in the Ipswich Garden Suburb ('IGS') demonstrates that inappropriate and burdensome policy can quickly become a practical impediment to delivery. Viability has been, and continues to be, a constraint on delivery - pragmatic policy-making will support delivery and thereby support the recovery of values to underpin a fully functioning housing market. We therefore recommend that housing delivery and viability should be recognised as key issues.

Comment

Representation ID: 25494

Received: 05/10/2017

Respondent: Orwell Ahead

We believe that with a re-thinking of district boundaries, the Orwell Peninsula (Ipswich to Felixstowe) area could deliver ambitious economic growth along with a significant increase in housing numbers. The duty to cooperate is inadequate. We believe there must be a single local plan for the Great Ipswich and Felixstowe area).

Comment

Representation ID: 25505

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Sue Catt

Why don't IBC planners understand the local area? My concerns are the planning department are antiquated in thoughts and if it doesn't affect them personally they are not bothered. Offer strange advice which makes me feel they do not understand the local area or community. IBC need to engage directly with the community. Stop reducing light to existing residents by doing away with high-rise. Sunlight helps all.
Do we need to infill every spare bit of land with housing? No. There are so many empty buildings and half built things in Ipswich and these should be looked at first.
There is nothing for the people of Ipswich to make them stay.

Comment

Representation ID: 25509

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Marcus Sharpe

One large Council combined Suffolk Coastal, Mid Suffolk, Babergh and Ipswich Council.