Support

Representation ID: 25592

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 CS10, including references to ensuring infrastructure provision meets needs, timely delivery of infrastructure alongside development and requirements for developer contributions.

Support

Representation ID: 25599

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

The DfE strongly supports the allocation of one secondary school and three primary schools at the Ipswich Garden Suburb through Policy CS10.

Object

Representation ID: 25610

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Westerfield Parish Council

Agent: Westerfield Parish Council

Westerfield Parish Council has noted the contents of Core Strategy 10 and continue to be concerned over the amount housing being proposed and its effect on the village of Westerfield.

Object

Representation ID: 25652

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Some form of northern relief road is clearly required and along with improvements to over-capacity junctions such as Henley Road/ Valley Road and needs to be included in the Infrastructure Tables and delivered for full development of the Ipswich Garden Suburb to be allowed.

Object

Representation ID: 25654

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

The traffic modelling and air quality assessments for the first phases of the IGS assumed that the Upper Orwell Crossings (TUOC) would proceed and needs to be reviewed to reflect the cancellation of this project. The Planning Inspector was incorrectly advised that full funding was in place for the Crossings and they would proceed.

Object

Representation ID: 25657

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

The potential impacts of Sizewell C on the IGS and the CS have still not properly been assessed. Concerns regarding the impact of increased rail freight for Sizewell C on the Ipswich-Westerfield line in terms of air pollution, noise, operation of the level crossing and proposed pedestrian bridge.

Object

Representation ID: 25660

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

There are still no firm proposals for new sewage infrastructure that is required for the IGS and the wider Ipswich area, which need to be consulted upon and included in the Infrastructure Tables. There remains a lack of understanding and detail on what new additional sewage infrastructure will be required or evidence that sewage infrastructure required for the IGS can be delivered.

The figure of 13,550 dwellings between 2011 and 2031 is an error that should be corrected.

Support

Representation ID: 25717

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Westerfield Parish Council

Agent: Westerfield Parish Council

The parish Council are pleased that Core Strategy 10 continues to include a commitment to the Ipswich Garden Suburb Supplementary Planning Document and also the appropriate separation of the "built areas" of the Ipswich Garden Suburb from the village of Westerfield.

Object

Representation ID: 25728

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England are broadly supportive of this policy but have concerns regarding the reference to 'dual use playing fields'. It is considered that the policy requirement for outdoor sport should not include school playing fields, as these are not always made available for public use, and over use can affect their quality.

The requirement for replacement playing fields for Ipswich School must be in addition to the policy requirements for community outdoor sport provision.

Object

Representation ID: 25738

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Constable Homes Ltd

In terms of affordable housing provision, the Council ought to allow for variances where justified by viability evidence.

In terms of phasing, at present, each phase is labelled N1(a), N1(b), N2(a), N2(b), N3(a) and N3(b), which implies that each phase should come forward in numerical order. This must be clarified in order that the Plan is not ambiguous and effective. We therefore suggest that the policy wording be amended to outline how each parcel could come forward individually, whilst still being in general accordance with the Council's growth strategy and the requirement for balanced growth across the strategic allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 25757

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Natural England

The scale and design of onsite green space should be assessed to ensure it is sufficient to absorb routine recreational activities. In addition, we advise that onsite accessible space is designed to facilitate biodiversity and support wildlife. Ipswich garden suburb presents a great opportunity for biodiversity net gain and we propose that this is incorporated into Policy CS10.

We support policy text that states development proposals will demonstrate accordance with the SPD and positively facilitate the development of other phases of the Ipswich Garden Suburb area.

Object

Representation ID: 25908

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Robinson

The 3,485 homes suggested for CS10, more if Humber Doucy Lane (CS2) are included will create the following issues:
- Significant increase in car movements around Ipswich, especially to the north. The current road layout is entirely unsuitable for any significant increase;
- A northern by-pass would be far less useful than an additional ring-road situated as close to the north of Ipswich;
- Adverse effect on air pollution;
- Harm to the landscape and environment;
- Loss of agricultural land;
- No capacity for schools, libraries and health centre; and
- Under provision of green space, parks and recreation

Object

Representation ID: 25923

Received: 20/03/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

There is an adopted SPD for this site, and within this it states that 'the success of the development of the Garden Suburb will depend to a large extent on the continued partnership working of the landowners, IBC and other key stakeholders to secure delivery'. This site is therefore reliant on multiple landowners coming forward and Pigeon would therefore argue that this complication will significantly delay the delivery of the development during the plan period. This concern should be afforded significant weight by the Council given that the Garden Suburb accounts for around half of the supply of housing.

Support

Representation ID: 26069

Received: 12/03/2019

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

The Council welcomes the protection of the physical separation between Ipswich and Westerfield village. This particular protection accords with Policy SCLP10.5 of the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan relating to settlement coalescence which aims to prevent the development of land between settlements that leads to urbanising effects between settlements. Policy CS10 also allows for a country park towards the north of the Ipswich Garden Suburb and the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan carries forward the allocation of land in the north of Ipswich Garden Suburb as part of the country park (Policy SCLP12.23). Policy CS10 is therefore supported.

Object

Representation ID: 26072

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: CBRE

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Despite clear evidence submitted through the development management process, unrealistic policy expectations remain under CS10. In particular, the Council's stance on affordable housing provision is untenable given the evidence available to it by virtue of the applications before it. Recognising the provisions of paragraph 64 of the NPPF (2019)), consideration should be given to a 10% threshold with additional provision secured where viability provides. We remain concerned that Policy CS10 remains prescriptive in terms of the use budget set out, and that such detail is unnecessary in Local Plan policy.

Object

Representation ID: 26080

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Despite clear evidence submitted through the development management process, unrealistic policy expectations remain under CS10. In particular, the Council's stance on affordable housing provision is untenable given the evidence available to it by virtue of the applications before it. Recognising the provisions of paragraph 64 of the NPPF (2019)), consideration should be given to a 10% threshold with additional provision secured where viability provides. We remain concerned that Policy CS10 remains prescriptive in terms of the and use budget set out, and that such detail is unnecessary in Local Plan policy.

Object

Representation ID: 26135

Received: 13/03/2019

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

NHS England are not dispensing new primary care contracts currently so the opportunities of establishing a new health centre in the Ipswich Garden Suburb are severely reduced. Mitigation for the increase in patients from the proposed Ipswich Garden Suburb will be spread between Two Rivers Medical Practice and the new healthcare facility at Tooks.

NHS England are not dispensing new primary care contracts currently so the opportunities of establishing a new health centre in the Ipswich Garden Suburb are severely reduced. The impact of the development and increase in patients will be mitigated by options currently being explored.