Support

Representation ID: 26206

Received: 21/02/2020

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

The CCG is very happy to see that health provision is identified as key infrastructure and will work with the council and alliance partners in providing holistic healthcare for the residents of Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 26321

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We consider that policy ISPA2 should also include delivery of strategic green infrastructure alongside the other types of infrastructure listed.

Object

Representation ID: 26384

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Regarding northern route (paragraph 8.19), IBC states support for such a route. We would like to draw attention to the article in the Ipswich Star (27/02/2019) and East Anglian Daily Times (22/02/2020) where the leader of IBC supports a northern bypass. Both previous Labour and Conservative Ipswich MPs have also argued for a northern route as a priority. This paragraph and the CS need to be updated to take account of the decision that the northern route will NOT be progressed further.

Object

Representation ID: 26390

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

Agent: East Suffolk Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Would like to highlight that the equivalent policy in the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan includes reference to police, community safety and cohesion provision and green infrastructure and suitable alternative natural green space. Suggested that policy ISPA2 should also reference these strategic priorities. This would align the policy with the Statement of Common Ground between ISPA authorities which specifically references these points. IBC will be aware that following the publication of the Ipswich Local Plan Review Final Draft, there have been recent announcements relating to ceasing the Ipswich Northern Routes project.

Object

Representation ID: 26403

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This needs to include the following highway schemes that SCC assumes will proceed in Ipswich in its ISPA LOCAL PLAN MODELLING Methodology Report Table 3-2 along with the dates they are required by. Without these being implemented the modelling work, and hence the CS is unsound. See 12 highways schemes listed in attached letter. This list excludes improvements to the Henley Road/Dale Hall Lane junctions with Valley Road which are required to be delivered by Crest Nicholson. Needs to be confirmed whether this infrastructure project has been included and modelled accordingly. Support the inclusion of sewage infrastructure in ISPA2.

Object

Representation ID: 26510

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Regarding northern route (paragraph 8.19), IBC states support for such a route. We would like to draw attention to the article in the Ipswich Star (27/02/2019) and East Anglian Daily Times (22/02/2020) where the leader of IBC supports a northern bypass. Both previous Labour and Conservative Ipswich MPs have also argued for a northern route as a priority. This paragraph and the CS need to be updated to take account of the decision that the northern route will NOT be progressed further.

Object

Representation ID: 26522

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This needs to include the following highway schemes that SCC assumes will proceed in Ipswich in its ISPA LOCAL PLAN MODELLING Methodology Report Table 3-2 along with the dates they are required by. Without these being implemented the modelling work, and hence the CS is unsound. See 12 highways schemes listed in attached letter. This list excludes improvements to the Henley Road/Dale Hall Lane junctions with Valley Road which are required to be delivered by Crest Nicholson. Needs to be confirmed whether this infrastructure project has been included and modelled accordingly. Support the inclusion of sewage infrastructure in ISPA2.

Support

Representation ID: 26544

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Network Rail

Agent: Network Rail

It is encouraging to see that Network Rail is mentioned in Policy ISPA2 Strategic Infrastructure Priorities as a working partner of Ipswich Borough Council to enable the delivery of key infrastructure projects.

Object

Representation ID: 26546

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Network Rail

Agent: Network Rail

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Network Rail have previously responded to planning applications in relation to Policy CS10 Ipswich Garden Suburb, where we have requested further information and mitigation measures in relation to the potential impacts on the Westerfield Level Crossing. We would actively encourage early engagement on strategic development sites to ensure all impacts are identified and taken into consideration at the masterplan stage. This is especially important in the context of Policy CS17 Delivering Infrastructure, where developments will be required to meet the on and off site infrastructure requirements and Policy CS20: Key Transport Proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 26592

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Agent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

A14 improvements required to support proposed growth have been identified - consistent with findings of modelling and study work. Plan notes that longer term funding would comprise growth funds, developer funding and monies identified from a future Roads Investment Strategy (RIS). RIS2 hasn't been published so it isn't possible to confirm this, or whether funding would be available from a future RIS. Without robust measures identified by Suffolk County Council, it isn't certain that delivery of the latter stages of the plan can be achieved - vital that a robust manage and monitor approach is maintained throughout the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 26594

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Agent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst not part of this Plan, it proposes a longer term aspiration for an Ipswich Northern Bypass which would lie within the East Suffolk Council and Mid Suffolk District Council area. The scheme would improve connectivity between the A14 and A12, reduce pressure on the A14 and improve network resilience, especially to the sections of A14 in the vicinity of the Orwell Bridge and Junction 55 (Copdock). Highways England has no objection in principle however it is noted that Suffolk County Council on 25 February 2020 at a cabinet meeting resolved not to take this scheme forward.

Object

Representation ID: 26596

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Agent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Plan aspires for a longer proposal for an east bank link road and a new A14(T) junction could work which would provide increased accessibility and reduce congestion to this area of Ipswich. As stated Highways England are not in favour of the proposals as there is concern with resultant local ‘junction hopping’ along the A14 which would reduce highway capacity, and more significantly it is considered that there is insufficient geometric capacity to accommodate an additional junctions on this section of the A14.