ipswich.gov.uk

Question 13:

Showing comments and forms 1 to 18 of 18

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24679

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Chris Wheeler

Representation:

I consider Option 4 is most suitable as it builds on existing attractive sustainable localities. Option 5 may also be feasible but will lead to Ipswich expanding into a large and possible unattractive large town. Option 6 is most undesirable - we have seen elsewhere what linear development leads to - I am surprised it has even been suggested.
General comment - Why isn't Wickham Market included?

Full text:

I consider Option 4 is most suitable as it builds on existing attractive sustainable localities. Option 5 may also be feasible but will lead to Ipswich expanding into a large and possible unattractive large town. Option 6 is most undesirable - we have seen elsewhere what linear development leads to - I am surprised it has even been suggested.
General comment - Why isn't Wickham Market included?

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24698

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

Representation:

SPS considers that development should be concentrated within the town (Option 5) and an increase in density would be preferable to erosion of countryside edge locations or encroaching into adjoining districts. Failure to concentrate in large urban areas will mean more greenfield sites need to be released which will reduce the viability of regeneration of urban brownfield sites.

Full text:

SPS considers that development should be concentrated within the town (Option 5) and an increase in density would be preferable to erosion of countryside edge locations or encroaching into adjoining districts. Failure to concentrate in large urban areas will mean more greenfield sites need to be released which will reduce the viability of regeneration of urban brownfield sites.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24720

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Christopher Wrathall

Representation:

Can I suggest that all three options for IBC stay on the table for further research and more specific consultation? I'd like to see the brown sites near the Waterfront developed (Option 1), but housing densities near the town centre should be kept low because there are not the transport facilities and infrastructures to cope with big increases in the population. Option 2 provides some opportunities, but my preferred option would be Option 3, as it would alleviate pressures on the town centre.

Full text:

Can I suggest that all three options for IBC stay on the table for further research and more specific consultation? I'd like to see the brown sites near the Waterfront developed (Option 1), but housing densities near the town centre should be kept low because there are not the transport facilities and infrastructures to cope with big increases in the population. Option 2 provides some opportunities, but my preferred option would be Option 3, as it would alleviate pressures on the town centre.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24763

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: West Suffolk (Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council)

Representation:

The Plan is sound.

Options 4 and 5 place a high proportion of growth within the area East of Ipswich. It will be important to ensure that the highway requirements of cumulative developments (particularly those using the A14) are adequately addressed, to enable appropriate growth. West Suffolk supports initiatives that improve cross-County road and rail infrastructure.

Full text:

The Plan is sound.

Options 4 and 5 place a high proportion of growth within the area East of Ipswich. It will be important to ensure that the highway requirements of cumulative developments (particularly those using the A14) are adequately addressed, to enable appropriate growth. West Suffolk supports initiatives that improve cross-County road and rail infrastructure.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24774

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hunter

Representation:

Option 5.

Full text:

Option 5.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24810

Received: 14/10/2017

Respondent: East Suffolk Travellers Association

Representation:

A blend of options 4 and 5. The key to maximising sustainable travel will be to focus development in and around towns with good access to the rail network. Three obvious examples are Woodbridge, Felixstowe and Saxmundham. Leiston also has potential access to the rail network if the branch is again served by passenger trains. Framlingham is 6 miles from the nearest railhead by a secondary road and is thus less of a candidate for growth. Estate agents' websites show that "distance to nearest rail station" has overtaken "school catchment" as the most important consideration when choosing where to live.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24869

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: FIS Property Limited and Landex Limited

Representation:

We have considered the alternative growth delivery options in Part 1 (pages 24-26). We consider that a combination of Option 1 (higher density urban regeneration) and Option 3 (Changing use of existing land in the borough to housing) provide the most appropriate housing growth delivery options. This will ensure that housing is provided in sustainable locations, regenerating areas that are in need of change and where development can enhance both the urban and living environment and make more efficient use of urban land.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24897

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

From a historic environment perspective, it is hard to select the preferred option given the range and distribution of heritage assets throughout both the Borough and the district. Each option will have an impact on heritage assets, and it will depend to some extent on where site allocations are identified. We note in particular that in some options Saxmundham and Framlingham have been identified for significant growth. Owing to the concentration of heritage assets and topography, both settlements are sensitive to new development and significant levels of growth are likely to have notable impact on the historic environment.

Full text:

See Attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24910

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: NHS England

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Growth Scenarios described will all have a significant impact on the delivery of primary care services. The mitigation required from each of the scenarios will reflect the level of impact and the final identified locations for development growth. It is however important to remember that improved or newly created infrastructure, alone, will not fully mitigate the impact of development growth. Resource and revenue implications provide a very significant risk to the delivery of primary care services and we should continue to work together to identify ways in which sustainable health care services can be delivered and
how development can contribute to healthy communities and the training and recruitment of health care professionals.

See attachment for detailed comments on the various options.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24923

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Representation:

The Parish Council considers Option 4 'Continuation of existing approach' the best solution.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24965

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Representation:

In general, we believe the current approaches, contained within the existing Local Plans are most appropriate. Basing the Local Plans on the Government's White Paper Housing targets would allow these approaches to continue.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25013

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Railfuture East Anglia

Representation:

Of the options presented the best seems to be a blend of options 4&5. Key to maximising sustainable travel will be to focus development in and around towns with good access to the rail network. Woodbridge, Felixstowe and Saxmundham are on the rail network whereas (for example) Framlingham is not. A study of estate agents web sites reveals that 'distance to nearest rail station' has overtaken school catchment as being the most important consideration when choosing where to live.

Full text:

See attached - full comment as per summary.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25040

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

Representation:

A combination of the distribution options suggested will be required. There must, however, be recognition that increased development beyond the Ipswich Borough boundary will play a key part in this delivery.
We would advocate a particular focus on providing for additional growth in those areas located around the Ipswich fringe, including those in MidSuffolk, given the direct relationship between such areas.
It's recognised that other options for the distribution of growth will also need to be included in the Local Plan Review. This could include an element of higher-density urban regeneration and the reuse of appropriate employment land.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25111

Received: 30/11/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation:

Gladman does not specifically favour any of the options that have been identified, but would highlight the need to plan for significant growth in proximity to Ipswich in addition to making realistic assumptions regarding the delivery of new homes across Ipswich's important urban regeneration sites.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25223

Received: 27/11/2017

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Representation:

In respect of Option 1, we would question whether a higher density urban-regeneration approach could deliver development needs in full. In addition, it is not clear if higher density urban regeneration is viable.

We would caution against relying on Option 2. The creation of a new settlement would require provision of entirely new infrastructure, and the cooperation and effective working of multiple agencies. Inevitably, there will be long lead in times for the commencement and completion of development.

The use of edge of settlement countryside represents a potentially sustainable Option 3. Such areas have the potential to be well-related to existing services, facilities, transport infrastructure and employment opportunities.

Option 4 directing growth east of Ipswich represents a sustainable approach.

Option 5 will reinforce the links across the administrative boundaries of Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal as well as supporting the County Town of Suffolk through increased focus of future growth.

We question the sustainability of option 6.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25286

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Representation:

Option 2 is the preferred choice of the group. We must face facts that our Borough boundaries constrain our development in many ways. Ipswich contributes greatly to the surrounding areas and provides many of the main services for the region. What it cannot provide, due to space, is housing so it makes sense that the other areas take a higher proportion of the new developments.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25362

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Representation:

If the conclusion of the recent Local Plan examination was that housing needs to 2031 could not be met within the Borough, then housing needs to 2036 cannot be met within the Borough. The Duty to Co-operate is clear in national planning policy and legal precedent, and in the conclusions of the examination and local planning policies CS6 and CS7. The only sound option for housing growth is therefore to look to neighbouring Districts to meet the Objectively Assessed Need.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25483

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Representation:

We consider it is imperative that Ipswich continues to focus on delivery of its current housing allocations, these are a finite resource, and the Council has no option but to look beyond its boundaries. The stalled delivery rates experienced over the last seven years demonstrate that relying predominantly upon town centre regeneration sites creates vulnerability to economic cycles and prevents a balanced housing supply. Instead, we support Option 2 whereby the emphasis is placed upon securing housing development within adjoining authorities. Allied to that, we support Option 5 which focuses growth around Ipswich and along the A14 corridor.

Full text:

See attached.