Object

Representation ID: 26188

Received: 11/02/2020

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Fred Lewis

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Held up for over 20 minutes on our walk at the northern section of the so called Fonnereau Way while a lorry was unloading. This road is not safe for pedestrians. This is contrary to the Design and Access Statement which states uses must be compatible with each other. Figure 1 does not take into account moving lorries and vehicles. Figure 2 (orange line) however indicates the new position for this so called Fonnereau Way which will avoid potential danger.

Object

Representation ID: 26211

Received: 21/02/2020

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

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

NHS England are not dispensing new primary care contracts currently so the opportunities of establishing a new health centre in the Ipswich Garden Suburb are severely reduced. Despite the relatively large size of the garden suburb development, primary care will be provided for the new patients at both Two Rivers Medical Centre and the new health centre proposed at the Tooks Bakery site. Community health services might be provided closer to the development but discussions would need to be had with the Alliance partners.

Object

Representation ID: 26251

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Mrs D Wiseman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Comments below relate only to section cutting through the dwelling (Broadacres). NPPF paragraphs 58 and 69 and Section 18 of Crime and Disorder Act 1998 quoted. In the SPD, planned enhancement to northern end of Fonnereau Way wouldn't meet these acts/ policies. The existing way at Broadacres doesn't meet these acts and promotes anti-social behaviour. Suffolk Constabulary letter to IBC (August 2016) quoted. SPD an opportunity to phase out Broadacres route and eradicate threat of crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour by keeping route within country park.

Object

Representation ID: 26253

Received: 27/02/2020

Respondent: Mrs D Wiseman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Unclear whether infrastructure improvements to Fonnereau Way relate to exiting route currently defined or amended route within country park.

Object

Representation ID: 26260

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Mr Paul Gilbert

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is a need for a safer pedestrian and cycle track other than Broad Acres Farm entrance at northern end of Fonnereau Way. Council has failed to assess the needs as the current footpath access is unsuitable for a cycle track. We had to negotiate 2 moving cars and a horse being moved on this access. There is no value enjoyment or country feel about walking through someones home. We were told recently that a new pedestrian way and cycle track would be opening on Lower Road, avoiding the farm, using country park. This is a much safer solution.

Object

Representation ID: 26280

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Sport England are broadly supportive of this policy, but have concerns regarding the reference to ‘dual use playing fields’. It is considered that the policy requirement for outdoor sport should not include school playing fields, as these are not always made available for public use, and over use can affect their quality.
The requirement for replacement playing fields for Ipswich School must be in addition to the policy requirements for community outdoor sport provision.

Object

Representation ID: 26297

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Constable Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

These representations relate to the promotion of Red House Farm for residential development. Contstable Homes Ltd has an interest in the land referred to as Red House Farm. Constable Homes is an operating subsidiary of the Anderson Group, which is a private development and construction business. The extent of our client’s ownership is defined by the red line shown on Figure 1.

Object

Representation ID: 26302

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Constable Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Client's land is area N3(b) (Figure 2). Reiterate concerns that the Council continues to number the phases in a way that implies they should be delivered in numerical order. SPD shows development can come forward in a self-contained manner. A safe and effective access from Tuddenham Road can be achieved. Surprised that when the Council interprets its own policy that this development would be precluded rather than positively facilitated. Suggest that the policy wording be amended to outline how each parcel could come forward individually to be sufficiently flexible and facilitate timely delivery of much needed residential accomodation.

Object

Representation ID: 26330

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Mersea Homes Ltd are broadly supportive of Policy CS10 and its various provisions, but in order to ensure effective delivery, there are three aspects of the policy that are considered to be unsound, as follows:
1. Elements of the detailed wording of the policy in relation to site specific matters and the role of the SPD, which relate to Effectiveness;
2. The Affordable Housing provisions, which relate to soundness issues in respect of the justification and the effectiveness of the Policy;
3. The wording of the Policy in respect of viability review provisions.

Object

Representation ID: 26354

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Quotes from SOCS and Portfolio Holder regarding impacts/ challenges (see attached). Concerns regarding air quality, flood risk vulnerability and biodiversity/ habitat loss. Future households will bear costs of management/ maintenance of drainage, levy new houses instead. Concerns on road network to cope with additional traffic without northern relief road. Concerned bridges not built in time to secure HIF and permissions only require vehicle bridge on delivery of 699 homes, impossible before March 2022 (HIF). Bridge too narrow for all road users and needed for safety. Need contingency measures for alternative funding. Delivery of roads must be compatible with traffic modelling.

Support

Representation ID: 26394

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

Agent: East Suffolk Council

The Council welcomes the protection of physical separation between Ipswich and Westerfield village. This accords with Policy SCLP10.5 of the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan which aims to prevent the development of land that leads to urbanising effects between settlements.

CS10 also facilitates a country park towards the north of the Ipswich Garden Suburb and the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan carries forward the allocation of land as part of the country park (Policy SCLP12.23).

This approach is considered by the Council to be sound.

Object

Representation ID: 26404

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Sewage infrastructure should be included. No agreed sewage infrastructure. If sewage infrastructure cannot be provided at the right time and right price for the IGS (as a whole) then IGS cannot be delivered in accordance with the Plan. All off-line sewage storage should be provided on-site. Not clear what RAMS S106 payments agreed with CBRE and Crest as S106 not public. If no RAMS tariffs included this could be in breach of SPD and policies CS4, CS17 and DM31 of adopted CS. New CS unsound in relation to CS4 CS17 and DM8 as no means of funding the required.

Object

Representation ID: 26415

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In principle, Gladman has no objections to the allocation of a new settlement as outlined in the proposed policy wording. However, it is essential that the Council has considered all options available for development and it is essential that realistic delivery assumptions have been applied to the sites delivery. Ipswich Borough has not delivered any large sites comparable to the scale proposed for the Ipswich Garden Suburb. It is clear that realistic assumptions on the delivery of Ipswich Garden Suburb have not been applied.

Object

Representation ID: 26416

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerns about funding of off-site infrastructure due to late trigger point in permissions, undermining modal shift 2026 delivery. Modelling is hiding fact that Ipswich roads near IGS are already heavily congested with roads already operating at capacity at peak times. Modelling must identify when key junctions and links reach capacity and how congestion will be mitigated. Concerned that modelling work shows greater than 100% capacity in both 2026 and 2036 on small residential roads, worsening air quality and no assessment of this factored in. Sizewell-C and Felixstowe 30% increase in trains not assessed (rail-freight). No AQA for IGS permissions. Unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 26446

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is an adopted SPD for this site, and within this it states that ‘the success of the development of the Garden Suburb will depend to a large extent on the continued partnership working of the landowners, IBC and other key stakeholders to secure delivery’. This site is therefore reliant on multiple landowners coming forward and Pigeon would therefore argue that this complication will significantly delay the delivery of the development during the plan period. This concern should be afforded significant weight by the Council given that the Garden Suburb accounts for around half of the supply of housing.

Support

Representation ID: 26453

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Agent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Support the delivery of homes at the Ipswich Garden Suburb and associated infrastructure, in particular the 1,200-place secondary school. It is essential that this secondary school is delivered alongside the housing.

Object

Representation ID: 26523

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Sewage infrastructure should be included. No agreed sewage infrastructure. If sewage infrastructure cannot be provided at the right time and right price for the IGS (as a whole) then IGS cannot be delivered in accordance with the Plan. All off-line sewage storage should be provided on-site. Not clear what RAMS S106 payments agreed with CBRE and Crest as S106 not public. If no RAMS tariffs included this could be in breach of SPD and policies CS4, CS17 and DM31 of adopted CS. New CS unsound in relation to CS4 CS17 and DM8 as no means of funding the required.

Object

Representation ID: 26532

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerns on road network to cope with additional traffic without northern relief road. Concerned bridges not built in time (March 2022) to secure HIF and permissions only require vehicle bridge on delivery of 699 homes, impossible before March 2022 (HIF). Bridge too narrow for all road users and needed for safety. Without early delivery of road/ pedestrian bridge, no safe walking/cycling. Need contingency measures for alternative funding and evidence that infrastructure deliverable. Delivery of roads must be compatible with traffic modelling. Unless alternative funding provided, levels of modal shift will not be achieved by 2026.

Object

Representation ID: 26533

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerns about funding of off-site infrastructure due to late trigger point in permissions, undermining modal shift 2026 delivery. Modelling is hiding fact that Ipswich roads near IGS are already heavily congested with roads already operating at capacity at peak times. Modelling must identify when key junctions and links reach capacity and how congestion will be mitigated. Concerned that modelling work shows greater than 100% capacity in both 2026 and 2036 on small residential roads, worsening air quality and no assessment of this factored in. Sizewell-C and Felixstowe 30% increase in trains not assessed (rail-freight). No AQA for IGS permissions. Unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 26540

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DfE supports the Council’s prioritisation of education infrastructure, and the allocation and safeguarding of land for schools as set out in the following policies: Ipswich Garden Suburb (Policy CS10) – 1 secondary school and 3 primary schools. DfE loans to forward fund schools as part of large residential developments may be of interest, for example if viability becomes an issue. Please see the Developer Loans for Schools prospectus for more information. Any offer of forward funding would seek to maximise developer contributions to education
infrastructure provision while supporting delivery of schools where and when they are needed.

Object

Representation ID: 26622

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Councillor Oliver Holmes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Given the percentage of affordable housing in existing permissions of 5% and 4% for nearly 2000 houses, a target of 31% for the whole site of 3500 dwellings is not achievable. A more realistic percentage needs to be given.