Object

Representation ID: 25541

Received: 18/02/2019

Respondent: Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council

Object to allocation of housing development at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane adjacent to Tuddenham Road. Road improvements required prior to development in this location.

Object

Representation ID: 25556

Received: 18/02/2019

Respondent: Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council

Concerned about the inclusion of land at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane near Tuddenham Road. Concerns regarding the implications for increased traffic on the Woodbridge-Claydon corridor via Playford road, Rushmere Street and Humber Doucy Lane.

Development should not take place until a northern relief road has been developed. Large developments are included in the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan for Brightwell Lakes, Suffolk Police Headquarters and Humber Doucy Lane.

This together with the mentioned allocation in the Ipswich Local Plan demonstrate that this plan should make provision for enhancements for roads both within Ipswich Borough and neighbouring authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 25564

Received: 21/02/2019

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

We support the inclusion of land within our client's control at Humber Doucy Lane on the northern edge of Ipswich, however it is submitted that these sites should be an allocation rather than a broad location. this would accord with the approach taken by Suffolk Coastal District Council in their draft policy SCLP12.24 of the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan. Furthermore, we submit that the plan should provide increased flexibility to come forward before 2031. Further details in relation to this site are set out int the attached representation.

Object

Representation ID: 25576

Received: 24/02/2019

Respondent: Heather Dodgson

Contest developments along the north of Humber Doucy Lane.

Existing traffic at capacity. This is exacerbated by cars parked outside homes. There is frequent queuing half way down Humber Doucy Lane between 8-9am, how will the roads accommodate further traffic?

There is no pedestrian walkway along the upper part of the road, how would residents walk safely?

Detrimental effects on health and pressure on local facilities/ services.

Development would affect house prices/ quality of area.

Detrimental impact on character and desirability of local area.

Loss of habitat and species

Loss of landscape and countryside views.

Object

Representation ID: 25582

Received: 25/02/2019

Respondent: Elaine Noske

The proposal fails to fully consider transport, air quality, economic and waste water issues; specifically that the viability of development of the Garden Suburb, in conjunction with other cross boundary proposals, may not be sustainable achieved due to the severe impact. The plans are unsound and not compliant with the NPPF.

The 'Climate Change' agenda is insufficiently addressed and contrary to NPPF paragraph 10. The effects are inadequately and inaccurately assessed against HRA and the SA and not complaint with NPPF 6-17.

Ten specific issues (drainage, flooding, sewage, traffic, air pollution, local facilities, trees, soil, habitats and countryside) raised.

Object

Representation ID: 25583

Received: 23/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Gavin Barnes

The following aspects need to be fully before any development:

Drainage
Flooding
Sewage
Additional Traffic
Air Pollution
Extra Pressures on Schools, Hospitals and GP's
Road Widening
Loss of Farmland

Object

Representation ID: 25584

Received: 23/02/2019

Respondent: Juliette John

Commented about lack of direct notification/ consultation about Humber Doucy Lane proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 25591

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

The DfE welcomes reference within the plan to support the development of appropriate social and community infrastructure, not least schools, in policy ISPA4, including references to ensuring infrastructure provision meets needs, timely delivery of infrastructure alongside development and requirements for developer contributions.

Object

Representation ID: 25616

Received: 08/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Whilst we note that this policy includes reference to a 'green rim' for walking and cycling, it should be expanded to make reference to cross-boundary working to deliver strategic green infrastructure. Such green infrastructure should deliver benefits for both people and biodiversity and help new developments deliver biodiversity net gain.

Object

Representation ID: 25649

Received: 08/03/2019

Respondent: Grainger Plc

The Borough has clearly not exhausted reasonable alternatives within the area east of Ipswich for housing and therefore has not fulfilled its duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities. As highlighted in Suffolk Coastal's Final Draft Local Plan, the area east of Ipswich presents opportunities to deliver housing within proximity to Ipswich Town Centre in a location that is already well served by infrastructure. Site 520 identified at Kesgrave within Appendix D (Alternative Sites) of Suffolk Coastal District Council's Sustainability Appraisal offers an opportunity to deliver housing within the early stages of the Plan period to meet Ipswich's unmet need.

Object

Representation ID: 25664

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

The proposal to allow development in north-east Ipswich at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane and Tuddenham Road is unsound. The Settlement Sensitivity Assessment recognises the sensitivity of the open land and in our view this land is too important and sensitive to be built on.

Additional homes should be provided in the empty retail shops and vast allocations in the town centre instead.

Traffic modelling shows that there will be significant over-capacity.

There should be no development here until the completion of the IGS. This needs to be made clear.

Object

Representation ID: 25669

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

The allocations of land at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane (ISPA 4) is in breach of policies CS16 (Green Rim), DM8 (The Natural Environment), DM10 (Green Corridors) and is also counter to the principles of policy DM11 (Countryside).

This allocation is also in breach of the current Core Strategy in relation to corresponding policies and Diagram 3 (The Ipswich Core Diagram) where it is designated as Green Rim. Insufficient evidence has been provided to justify this change of classification from countryside.

The North East Character Study recognises the benefits of this site as a rural buffer.

Object

Representation ID: 25836

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

The Parish Council have concerns, and object to, the inclusion of 'a broad location' at Humber Doucy Lane and Tuddenham Road.

The documents state that this Local Plan sets out the strategy for future development of Ipswich to 2036 but insufficient information is provided about what is proposed at this location.

The Parish Council are disappointed that only vague details for this location are included and this site has not previously been included for consultation.

It has been difficult to obtain information about the allocation.

This development would result in the physical separation being further diminished between Ipswich and villages.

Object

Representation ID: 25861

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Do not support this proposal which is in conflict with policies DM10, DM11, Plan 5, CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS4.

Object

Representation ID: 25866

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Also see representation 25865.
Ipswich has not taken SCDC Neighbourhood Plans nor Parish Council submissions into account.
The plan does nothing to address the long standing deficit in Open Space in North and East Ipswich.
The public notices are in wrong locations.
The area is a green corridor and development would be in breach of CS16.
Development will adversely impact on the sensitivity of the Fynn Valley and needs to address light pollution and heritage.
Need to protect post-brexit "best and most versatile" Grade 2 farm land.
Will lead to coalescence of Westerfield, Tuddenham and Ipswich.
See Northern Fringe Comments.

Object

Representation ID: 25872

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Do not support this proposal which is in conflict with policies DM10, DM11, Plan 5, CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS4.
Challenge the need for this development on the basis:
1. This land was identified as sensitive to development in the Landscape Settlement Sensitivity Assessment.
2. There are opportunities to deliver housing in the town centre and less retail.
3. Traffic modelling shows junctions in this area at over-capacity.
4. The North East Character Study recognises the benefits of this site as a rural buffer.

Object

Representation ID: 25876

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Ipswich has not taken SCDC Neighbourhood Plans nor Parish Council submissions into account.
The plan does nothing to address the long standing deficit in Open Space in North and East Ipswich.
The public notices are in wrong locations.
The area is a green corridor and development would be in breach of CS16.
Development will adversely impact on the sensitivity of the Fynn Valley and needs to address light pollution and heritage.
Need to protect post-brexit "best and most versatile" Grade 2 farm land.
Will lead to coalescence of Westerfield, Tuddenham and Ipswich.
See Northern Fringe Comments.

Object

Representation ID: 26007

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Welcome the policy commitment to a coordinated approach to the cross-boundary development proposals north of Humber Doucy Lane.

Transport mitigation at this location will be challenging, hence sustainable links to employment and key services must be the priority, coordinated through strong Travel Plans to encourage significant modal shift and a contribution to wider sustainable measures. Further investigation of highway improvements may be necessary.

Based on Plan 1, the nearest local/district centre is some distance from the development; more than 400m. The Council should consider incorporating a requirement for a new local centre in this area, to be determined through masterplanning.

Object

Representation ID: 26039

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Parish Council

The Council would not like to see any development on our Special Landscape/Protection Areas (such as Chantry Vale and Hope Farm) which should be taken into very serious account before even considering developments of any size. and hope that Sustainability Assessments can help us in this.

Object

Representation ID: 26063

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Bloor Homes

The site (appendix A/B) provides a medium-term opportunity for IBC and SCDC and the ISPA board to extend the spatial approach for development in North-East Ipswich by the identification of a Garden Village site to the north of Humber Doucy Lane, Rushmere St. Andrew.

This will support the delivery of new housing, employment floorspace, transport and community infrastructure to meet the needs in the latter part of the Plan Period and beyond. It will maintain the necessary separation from Rushmere St. Andrew.

It is a significant cross-boundary opportunity that should be referenced in ISPA4 and supporting paragraphs 8.24 - 8.27

Object

Representation ID: 26067

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils (East Suffolk)

Support principles of policy which contributes towards each authority meeting housing needs within their area. The SCDC Plan Infrastructure Delivery Framework provides detail of the infrastructure to support development and policy (SCLP3.5) also supports this. Similar detail relating to infrastructure could be included in the Ipswich Plan, reflecting the Annex to the SOCG. For consistency with DM11, policy for development at the northern-end of Humber Doucy Lane should reference the maintenance of separation between Ipswich and surrounding settlements.

From 1st April 2019 the new East Suffolk Council will be created, and references to SCDC in the Plan should be updated.

Object

Representation ID: 26078

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Positive that recognition, consistent with the draft SOCG on Strategic Cross Boundary Planning Matters which deals with matter of working with adjoining authorities (albeit the reference at outcome/agreement point C3 should be strengthened).

However, the policy doesn't provide assurances required in plan-making and should offer more than a commitment to 'work with' the adjacent authority, and on a general basis. Given the scale of growth required to meet Ipswich's housing need, the consistent under-performance and its constrained boundaries, a commitment to cross-boundary cooperation is necessary. The relationship between Ipswich and its hinterland (adjacent authorities) justifies a strong commitment to joint-working.

Object

Representation ID: 26124

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Jo Porter

Will create an urban effect in a rural area, destroy habitats, trees, hedges and crops.

Will create air pollution and drainage issues which are already at capacity.

Traffic infrastructure is not capable as Tuddenham Road is a main route from surrounding villages into Ipswich. Humber Doucy Lane is also used as a main route and traffic can't cope. The local high school and primary school are at capacity.

Fails to take adequate and comprehensive account of transport, air quality, economy and wastewater. Contrary to designated green space and green rim policies.

Other applications in this area refused.

Traffic safety concerns.

Object

Representation ID: 26136

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Ipswich & East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group & West Suffolk CCG

The possibility of issues arising from developments near to local authority boundaries with regards to healthcare provision is prevalent in the LP. The developments of Ipswich Suburb, continued development of Ravenswood and Whitton are examples of these possible cross boundary developments. Communication and cooperation will be vital in making sure that all appropriate stakeholders are aware of developments and mitigation can be sought in a timely manner. Cooperation will be required between the CCG, IBC, SCDC and BMSDC to make sure that the land North of Ipswich in both local plans is accounted for in mitigating health.