Comment

Representation ID: 24660

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Alice Martin

Whilst not a planning issue if Suffolk C.C. actually sent buses where people wanted to go there would be a reduction of traffic in the town and no need for a northern ipswich bypass. The wet-dock crossing is a must as this will have a positive impact on the town - please do not back down on this due to political pressure. The future of Ipswich is far more important than a temporary MP.

Comment

Representation ID: 24684

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Chris Wheeler

Major improvements to the A12 (e.g. Four Villages bypass) are critical it is known that improved infrastructure bring economic benefit as well as improving productivity.

Comment

Representation ID: 24726

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Christopher Wrathall

The development of the Island Site sounds like a good idea, but I have strong doubts about how the planned vehicle bridge could affect traffic across the southern part of Ipswich. If it draws traffic away from Star Lane and College Street, it could merely shift congestion away from these areas into other residential areas of the town, especially if it draws traffic off the A14 as well. Modelling of the possible effects of the new infrastructure has focussed on journey times; it should focus on potential pollution levels.

Comment

Representation ID: 24748

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Sutters

Chaos is what happens when the Orwell Bridge is closed because of either weather or an accident.

The Princes Street Bridge by Ipswich Station needs improvement

Comment

Representation ID: 24788

Received: 23/09/2017

Respondent: Mr Philip Pethybridge

Ipswich is very wide in comparison to other towns. This does not help in making the whole town accessible. Go north (with development), put the infrastructure in and build the northern route. Also provide proper cycle roads. [See also response to Q4 regarding cycling infrastructure].

Comment

Representation ID: 24823

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Wildlife Group

Ipswich needs more significant green spaces to sustain increased levels of housing and population growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 24847

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Work as described to alleviate the one way system (ie new bridges and access).
Proportionate provision of schools, medical facilities etc with every new development.
Consideration of the impact on the ability to police newly developed areas and contributions towards additional costs.

Comment

Representation ID: 24893

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: NHS England

Number of people: 2

Growth, in terms of housing and employment, is proposed across a wide area and would likely have an impact on future healthcare service provision. This response relates to the impact on primary care services only. Existing GP practices in the area do not have capacity to accommodate significant growth.
In terms of optimal space requirements to encourage a full range of services to be delivered within the community there is an overall capacity deficit, based on weighted patient list sizes¹, within the 16 GP Practices providing services in the area.
Policies should be explicit in that contributions towards healthcare provision will be obtained and the Local Planning Authority will consider a development's sustainability with regard to effective healthcare provision.
Notwithstanding this, there should be a reasonably worded policy within the emerging LDP that indicates a supportive approach from the Local Planning Authority to the improvement, reconfiguration, extension or relocation of existing medical facilities. This positive stance should also be indicated towards assessing those schemes for new
bespoke medical facilities where such facilities are agreed to in writing by the commissioner. New facilities will only be appropriate where they accord with the latest upto-
date NHS England and CCG strategy documents and are subject to the NHS England prioritisation and approval process.

Comment

Representation ID: 24915

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Historic England

The Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Sensitivity Study should include heritage assets and their settings, e.g. scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, conservation areas. This should prevent the Study identifying an area of land containing, e.g. a scheduled monument to have low sensitivity to development. We also note that design and heritage assessments are planned. Given the historic nature of the district and Borough and the levels of growth proposed, it is likely that heritage impact assessments will be needed for sensitive sites to identify whether/how much development is possible and whether mitigation or enhancement measures can be incorporated.

Comment

Representation ID: 24927

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Improved public transport provision and transport links are required that meet the needs of the community and neighbouring communities. These include buses which tie in better with local school timetables and improvements in the travel service between neighbouring villages in order to reduce individual car journeys. Cycle provision should also be improved, particularly utilising bridleways and footpaths where appropriate to enable movement away from main roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 24973

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

A northern relief road will be required to accommodate the build-out of the Ipswich Garden Suburb and ease current congestion. Road improvements are required to alleviate existing congestion in the town centre and will also be required to accommodate new developments. The Ipswich Garden Suburb SPD infrastructure requirements are all required, as are those specified as conditions to planning applications. Air quality urgently needs improving before encouraging cycling and walking in AQMAs. Improvements to Westerfield Railway Station and the Ipswich-Felixstowe line are required, and an assessment of the viability of a further station in the vicinity of Futura Park.

Comment

Representation ID: 24998

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Natural England

We note the reference to the Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) (page 39) and agree that the implementation of this strategy within Ipswich Borough and neighbouring districts will result in new residential development having no likely significant effect in combination on internationally designated sites. New figures for predicted housing growth will need to be included in the evidence base and the tariff calculations for the strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 25011

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Railfuture East Anglia

Improvements to the local rail network. Atkins consultants for 'East-West Rail' are advancing the case for increases in the frequency of rail services into Ipswich from Bury St. Edmunds and Felixstowe but this will require additional platform capacity at Ipswich and double tracking the Felixstowe line. Ipswich Garden Suburb should benefit from a relocated station at Westerfield to provide sustainable transport links to the rest of the network. The East Suffolk line should be double track as far as Saxmundham (currently only as far as Woodbridge). This would enable the services to run every half hour to Woodbridge and Saxmundham and provide Woodbridge with a more attractive service into Ipswich.

Comment

Representation ID: 25015

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

All areas need sufficient high-quality greenspace, with good connectivity to and through the network.

Comment

Representation ID: 25059

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Road improvements are required to alleviate existing congestion in the town centre and will also be required to accommodate new developments. The Ipswich Garden Suburb SPD infrastructure requirements are all required, as are those specified as conditions to planning applications. Some are needed ahead of development. SOCS still oppose multiple starts. Air quality urgently needs improving before encouraging cycling and walking in AQMAs. Specific cycling/walking measures need to be implemented. Improvements to Westerfield Railway Station and the Ipswich-Felixstowe line are required, and an assessment of the viability of a further station in the vicinity of Futura Park.

Comment

Representation ID: 25078

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP will continue to assist the Council in developing a feasible solution for the
Upper Orwell Crossings and for all modes access to the Island site. ABP also supports the efforts of IBC and SCC to progress the Ipswich Northern Route Study and to bring forward proposals to secure transport capacity improvements which will benefit strategic and local traffic accessing and egressing the Port.

Comment

Representation ID: 25166

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Chamber of Commerce

We support Better Broadband for Suffolk to roll out superfast (24 Mbs) broadband and: 100% coverage by the end of 2017; business prioritisation; and 100% 100 Mbs coverage by the end of the decade. The Plan policies should take account of the very real need, for new developments and retro-fitting.
Likewise we hope that the Plan will include policies which promote 100% 4G mobile technology coverage by all networks, through provider collaboration where possible.
Regarding utilities the Plan should ensure that water provision, waste water disposal and electricity provision at all employment sites are adequate for present and future needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 25344

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Greenways Countryside Project

Agent: Mr James Baker

Additional significant areas of semi-natural greenspace are required (in addition to the proposed Garden Suburb country park) across the Ipswich Policy Area to sustain the likely levels of housing growth. Orwell Country Park requires the inclusion of all of the land at Pond Hall Farm to allow sustainable access and reduce disturbance of overwintering wildfowl in the Orwell Estuary SPA.

Comment

Representation ID: 25392

Received: 30/11/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments

It is positive that the future infrastructure and transport requirements for the Ipswich urban area are being considered at a strategic level through the plan making process and that projects are underway to explore alternative options for east-west routes. The Local Plan provides the opportunity to manage growth in a manner that supports infrastructure delivery by setting a framework to shape investment in homes, employment sites, schools, health care facilities, community facilities, retail, public transport and roads. Garden Villages provide an opportunity to deliver a number of key objectives in this regard.

Comment

Representation ID: 25409

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

A dual carriageway Northern Bypass, Copdock Interchange and Nacton junction upgrades, and rail upgrades as specified above in another question.

Comment

Representation ID: 25457

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Given the variety of spatial options which could, at this stage, come forward through the Plan, it is difficult to offer conclusive comments on the infrastructure which will be needed, but relevant issues to consider are as follows. Transport, see question 30; education, see question 32. Fire and Rescue: the Local Plan should create safe and accessible environments in respect of infrastructure needs, access by services and water supply. Libraries: modern libraries are the hub of communities and may be a relevant consideration in determining settlement hierarchy and levels of growth. Waste: the Plan should support sustainable waste management and reduce demand on waste infrastructure. Current facilities at Foxhall Road and Portman's Walk are over capacity.