ipswich.gov.uk

Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan at Final Draft Stage (Sept 2019)

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Support

Supporting Documents and PDFs for Download

Representation ID: 26287

Received: 25/02/2020

Respondent: Natural England

Agent: Natural England

Representation:

We are satisfied that the Habitats Regulations Assessment has provided a robust assessment of the Ipswich Local Plan final draft, in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and having regard to relevant caselaw. We are pleased that the recommendations for the strengthening of policy wording in the HRA screening report have been incorporated within the final draft of the Core Strategy, and issues carried forward into the Appropriate Assessment stage as we would expect, with recommendations for appropriate mitigation.

Change suggested by respondent:

N/A

Attachments:

Object

Supporting Documents and PDFs for Download

Representation ID: 26346

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Representation:

Heathrow decision highly material. Needs referencing and assessment regarding Local Plans, Strategic Planning and Local decision making. New case law could make Local Plans, where Paris Agreement on climate change isn’t adequately taken into account or doesn’t demonstrate conformity to within HRA challengeable and potentially unlawful. Extract from judgement included. Fails to take into account non-compliance of the AQAP with Government guidelines, non-compliance of the AQA for the IGS with DM3 and train and shipping emissions, especially as shipping will clearly impact on the Orwell Estuary, which is part of a Special Protection
Area (SPA) and Ramsar site.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Attachments:

Object

Supporting Documents and PDFs for Download

Representation ID: 26376

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Representation:

HRA simply assumes that CS fully implemented and full funding for all measures secured. No evidence that IBC can deliver improvements in walking, cycling and bus infrastructure, improved road infrastructure and unprecedented levels of modal shift. IBC and SCC’s record in these areas is dire. HRA incomplete and underplays key issues. Needs to fully assess air quality impacts including from rail/ sea, additional road infrastructure required, re-designation of Green Rim, alternatives to HDL (and SCDC no longer needs this to meet housing target), flood risk and new sewage infrastructure. Needs to assess robustness if unprecedented levels of modal shift underachieved.

Change suggested by respondent:

Needs to fully assess air quality impacts including from rail/ sea, additional road infrastructure required, re-designation of Green Rim, alternatives to HDL (and SCDC no longer needs this to meet housing target), flood risk and new sewage infrastructure. Needs to assess robustness if unprecedented levels of modal shift underachieved.

Attachments:

Object

Supporting Documents and PDFs for Download

Representation ID: 26491

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Representation:

Opening comments on SA, apply to HRA.
HRA incomplete and must address impacts of:
1. Proposed re-designation of Green Rim.
2. New sewage infrastructure required for growth.
3. Required traffic infrastructure identified by traffic modelling
4. Non-compliance of IGS AQA with DM3.
5. Emissions from rail and shipping.
If no such assessments are included in the HRA then needs to explain why. IBC’s response to the recommendations in relation to Paragraph 1.29 is not acceptable. CS needs strengthening to ensure
compliance with this recommendation especially given Green Rim redesignation. Also whether lack of S106 payments for RAMs IGS sites acceptable.

Change suggested by respondent:

Update HRA.

Attachments:

Object

Supporting Documents and PDFs for Download

Representation ID: 26503

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Representation:

HRA assumes that CS fully implemented and funding for all measures. No evidence that IBC can deliver improvements in walking, cycling and bus infrastructure, improved road infrastructure and unprecedented levels of modal shift. IBC and SCC’s record in these areas is dire. HRA incomplete and underplays key issues. Needs to fully assess air quality impacts, AQAP and IGS non-compliance with DM3 including from rail/ sea, additional road infrastructure required, re-designation of Green Rim, alternatives to HDL (and SCDC no longer needs this to meet housing target), flood risk, new sewage infrastructure and robustness if unprecedented levels of modal shift underachieved.

Change suggested by respondent:

Needs to fully assess air quality impacts, non-compliance of AQAP and IGS with DM3, including from rail/ sea, additional road infrastructure required, re-designation of Green Rim, alternatives to HDL (and SCDC no longer needs this to meet housing target), flood risk and new sewage infrastructure. Needs to assess robustness if unprecedented levels of modal shift underachieved.

Attachments:

Object

Supporting Documents and PDFs for Download

Representation ID: 26539

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Representation:

Opening comments on SA, apply to HRA.
HRA incomplete and must address impacts of:
1. Proposed re-designation of Green Rim.
2. New sewage infrastructure required for growth.
3. Required traffic infrastructure identified by traffic modelling
4. Non-compliance of IGS AQA with DM3.<br> 5. Emissions from rail and shipping.
If no such assessments are included in the HRA then needs to explain why. IBC’s response to the recommendations in relation to Paragraph 1.29 is not acceptable. CS needs strengthening to ensure
compliance with this recommendation especially given Green Rim redesignation. Also whether lack of S106 payments for RAMs IGS sites acceptable.

Change suggested by respondent:

Update HRA accordingly.

Attachments: