Object

Representation ID: 26341

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Appears that environmental, social and economic effects of plan(s) are inadequately/ inaccurately
assessed against HRA and the SA. The SEA Directive requires that assessment include identification of cumulative and synergistic effects, including other neighbouring local authorities. The SA does not appear to take account of the cumulative effect of CSs Plans of neighbouring authorities with regard to housing, employment and especially transport/traffic and increased air pollution and traffic congestion. Needs to fully assess the implications on building on HDL and whether delivering more homes in the town centre instead of retail expansion might be a more sustainable option.

Object

Representation ID: 26378

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposal to allow development in north-east Ipswich at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane and Tuddenham Road is not justified and therefore unsound. Land in the centre of Ipswich earmarked for expanded retail and car parking (which we believe is surplus to requirements), should be used for new homes instead. There is no SA of this viable alternative.

Object

Representation ID: 26485

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

No SA of:
- Lack of sewage infrastructure for IGS and ISPA and environmental impacts of new sewage infrastructure (emissions and traffic congestion)
- air quality or noise assessment in relation to rail transport (Ipswich Chord and Freight yard) and additional freight to/ from Port of Felixstowe,
- environmental impacts of Port of Ipswich.
- potential impacts of increased freight traffic on IGS pedestrian bridge and Westerfield rail crossing
- decision to destroy Green Rim by building homes on ISPA4 and re-designating as Green Trails.
- lack of full appraisal of the impacts on building ISPA4.
- omitting Climate-Emergency Declaration

Object

Representation ID: 26505

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposal to allow development in north-east Ipswich at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane and Tuddenham Road is not justified and therefore unsound. Land in the centre of Ipswich earmarked for expanded retail and car parking (which we believe is surplus to requirements), should be used for new homes instead. There is no SA of this viable alternative.

Object

Representation ID: 26591

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Appendix F sets out our full concerns. In summary, the SA has not considered the spatial strategy actually set out in the Local Plan. An option has been assessed which the Council consider to be close to the spatial strategy chosen, but they are different. It appears that Spatial Option 1, the option most closely aligned with the spatial strategy in the Local Plan, has been scored unjustly positively in some areas, and Spatial Option 2 has been scored more poorly. The SA prepared alongside the emerging Local Plan does not provide the necessary justification of the proposed spatial strategy.