Object

Representation ID: 25555

Received: 27/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Chamberlain

Expresses concern for the allocation for 126 dwellings at site ref IP150e and additional 34 dwellings on site ref IP150d which previously was all going to be part of a sports complex area. The cumulative effect on traffic and the single point of entry to the Ravenswood area and 160 homes will end up making the traffic situation intolerable.

Object

Representation ID: 25557

Received: 27/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Chamberlain

Submission accepts the development of Sites U, V and W nearby but believes the development of 150d and 150e will add to the strain on the local infrastructure.
IBC is purely looking at available space without recognising that Ravenswood is hemmed in to the town centre to the north west, the A14 to the south and the railway line to the north east. We are boxed in and limited to one point of access. Cramming too many homes onto the development is just crazy.

Object

Representation ID: 25571

Received: 25/01/2019

Respondent: Scott Bridges

The current natural area adjacent to Alnesbourn Crescent forms an important part of the natural beauty and wildlife land of Ravenswood. The proposal, especially of IP150e would greatly reduce the natural habitat in the Ravenswood estate.

Traffic is already of a major concern to residents on the estate, with the current Ravenswood roundabout congested during both rush hours. The addition of new homes on the estate would put an undue stress on an already stretched junction and there is no detail of how these concerns would be alleviated.

Object

Representation ID: 25637

Received: 08/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

We note that site 150e is allocated for employment use in the current Local Plan as part of site 150c. As with sites 150b and 150d this area, the continued allocation of this area is regrettable as it is an area of wildlife value and forms part of the ecological corridor on the south-eastern edge of the town. Proposals for any development on this site must be informed by survey and assessment of all of the ecological receptors likely to be impacted by the development. Appropriate ecological mitigation and enhancement measures must be embedded as part of any proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 25851

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

No justification for reverting from employment to housing. Traffic impact has not been assessed. Nothing to rule out piecemeal applications. It is visually and ecologically connected to the adjacent nature reserve. Density is higher than surroundings. Existing green infrastructure should be preserved. Need for green infrastructure will increase density. Vagueness about how it will come forward. Without a comprehensive and cumulative assessment of all proposals in this area the piecemeal developments would exacerbate bad planning impacts on biodiversity, green space, traffic, noise and air quality. A comprehensive proposal must be subject to EIA. Referred to as brownfield but clearly greenfield.

Object

Representation ID: 26119

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Ravenswood Residents Association

Cumulative impact of IP150e, IP150d and IP150a = 254 dwellings. Recommendations:
1) To be kept informed on plans which should reflect IBCs undertaking for 65.8% Private Housing and 34.2% Social Housing mix.
2) Additional new access/egress to Ravenswood to cope with the expected surge in traffic volumes, as already congestion problems at the current roundabout access point during:
- morning/ evening rush-hours
- school drop-off/ pick-up
- lunch times - restaurant traffic prevents traffic going to/ from the busy shopping mall and IMPORTANTLY EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

IP152, IP150e and IP150c need to be master planned with second access point for Ravenswood.