Support

Representation ID: 26209

Received: 21/02/2020

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

The accessibility of infrastructure is a key factor in designing a development that is aimed at meeting environmental and health objectives. Despite the desire to have all community infrastructure within easily accessible locations, it might not always be possible for health but this does not mean that community space could not be accessible to provide community healthcare services on an ad hoc basis.

Object

Representation ID: 26364

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC is failing to Improve Access in breach of CS5. More needs to be done otherwise Modal Switch assumptions too high and unsound. CS is not justified with respect to Improving Access and Transport. concerned that our comments on CS5 and CS20 in relation to the transport modelling and modal shift (and associated air quality issues) have not been adequately considered. disappointing that the Transport Mitigation Strategy and other relevant modal shift documents have not been included in the Evidence Base. new infrastructure required is substantially underestimated as is the difficulty in achieving the unprecedented levels of modal shift necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 26413

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Only two major changes to cycle network since adopted CS. Lack of commitment to maintain existing network and cycle infrastructure poor. Need to evidence initiatives implemented and modal shift achieved. No progress in meeting requirements of CS5. SCC draft local cycling & walking infrastructure plan referenced. Clear that without major improvements there is no chance of modal shift being achieved. Cycling/ walking is unattractive, unsafe, incoherent and uncomfortable. Bus routes just go into town rather than radial. Investment in bus network required. No money allocated over four-year period to improving air quality, delivering modal shift or improving cycle/ pedestrian infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 26494

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC is failing to Improve Access in breach of CS5. More needs to be done otherwise Modal Switch assumptions too high and unsound. CS is not justified with respect to Improving Access and Transport. concerned that our comments on CS5 and CS20 in relation to the transport modelling and modal shift (and associated air quality issues) have not been adequately considered. disappointing that the Transport Mitigation Strategy and other relevant modal shift documents have not been included in the Evidence Base. new infrastructure required is substantially underestimated as is the difficulty in achieving the unprecedented levels of modal shift necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 26531

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Only two major changes to cycle network since adopted CS. Lack of commitment to maintain existing network and cycle infrastructure poor. Need to evidence initiatives implemented and modal shift achieved. No progress in meeting requirements of CS5. SCC draft local cycling & walking infrastructure plan referenced. Clear that without major improvements there is no chance of modal shift being achieved. Cycling/ walking is unattractive, unsafe, incoherent and uncomfortable. Bus routes just go into town rather than radial. Investment in bus network required. No money allocated over four-year period to improving air quality, delivering modal shift or improving cycle/ pedestrian infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 26545

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Network Rail

Agent: Network Rail

We support Policy CS5 in relation to Improving Accessibility and agree that inclusive transport infrastructure should be a priority. This will be especially important with the population increase in the local area that would be generated by the growth in local economy and new housing outlined in Policy CS7 The Amount of Housing Required.

Object

Representation ID: 26556

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

Agent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Generally welcomes, and supports, initiatives that are designed to minimise the need to travel and promote foot, bicycle and public transport travel modes. Also welcomes recognition that some journeys will need to be made by car, however, disappointed that only the Town Centre is specifically mentioned as being a location, the vitality and viable of which, depends upon access by a variety of transport modes. Of the view that, in order for the Final Draft to be found sound, this ‘recognition’ needs to be expanded to include the whole of the IP-One Area. Summary: Object for reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 26621

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Councillor Oliver Holmes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although improving accessibility is recognised, it has to be borne in mind that the vast majority of journeys into and through Ipswich are by car and there is no objective for limiting or reducing car transport. It is entirely likely that accessibility will decrease over the plan period.