Support

Representation ID: 26213

Received: 21/02/2020

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

The CCG welcomes the importance attributed to open spaces in the LP and is encouraged to see the health factors being taken into account as well as the environmental benefits.

Support

Representation ID: 26277

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are satisfied that this paragraphs incorporates our previous comments in relation to Natural Flood Management.

Object

Representation ID: 26308

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy needs to be clear that new development should meet the needs arising from that development, having regard to the Council’s standards, and should not be required to remedy existing deficits.

Object

Representation ID: 26352

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Tuddenham Road/Westerfield green corridors are home to significant number of recorded protected species (great crested newts, badgers, hedgehogs, bats and all manner of species) as well as birds, flora/ fauna; Southern Marsh and bee orchids found on the Fynn Valley and adjacent area. Due to private ownership, there is little interest for formal surveys due to landowners aspirations for land use. SWT done some work within Red House Ipswich, the Fynn Valley CWS; a Hedgerow Survey of the whole IGS area completed. Active badger sets reported. Object to change from green rim to green trail as this is misleading. Approach to green infrastructure unsound due to constraints of IGS and HDL.

Support

Representation ID: 26400

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

Agent: East Suffolk Council

The Council supports and welcomes the approach of working with partners in respect of the Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy and a new country park with the Ipswich Garden Suburb. Both of the aforementioned aspects of this policy are reflective of the joint working being undertaken by the Council and IBC.

The Council also supports joint working with IBC and other neighbouring authorities to deliver strategic green infrastructure. In particular, the establishment of a green trail around Ipswich is reflected in Policy SCLP12.24 in the Suffolk Coastal Final Draft Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 26401

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Strongly disagree with the proposed change to replace “green rim” with “green trail”. The existing green rim is an asset and should be protected by adding it to Policy CS4, especially as Ipswich Borough Council have previously massively reduced its size and are now attempting to
reclassify it and hence destroy it. Change in name is misleading and is actually to bring forward land at Humber Doucy Lane for development. Non-compliant with DM8. See appendix 1 for history of the green rim/ corridors. No mention of the green rim/ trail being used in the Ipswich Cycling Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 26460

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Agent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Para 8.207 - Support the collaborative working on the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS), although need to ensure that any RAMS contributions collected are spent to mitigate the impact from the development that has generated the need for the RAMS contribution.

Object

Representation ID: 26520

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council in its paper is mis-leading Councillors as the concept of corridors and the green rim was for the corridors to provide access on foot or by cycle to the countryside surrounding Ipswich. That countryside then became known as the green rim and the intention was for the green rim to be protected from development. We note that in subsequent CSs the green rim has been considerably reduced in size, which demonstrates the Council’s lack of commitment to protecting open space and improving biodiversity in its own Plans. The change in definition is effectively non-compliant with policy DM8.

Object

Representation ID: 26559

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

Whilst generally supportive of the objectives of this policy, in order for the Plan to be sound, there should be an explicit recognition that, on high density sites within the IP-One Area, and particularly along the Waterfront, it won't be possible to make full provision for private, and public, open space, in accordance with the Council’s standards. Open space is a ‘land hungry’ use and, if developments have to meet full standards, densities will be greatly reduced. Could threaten achievement of the Council’s spatial strategy and result in new development not making the best/most effective use of previously developed sites.

Object

Representation ID: 26624

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Councillor Oliver Holmes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Problem exists within Ipswich over sports grounds - illustrated by grant of planning permission for residential development at Ipswich Sports Club in Henley Road. Hockey pitch deemed inadequate and relocated elsewhere enabling potential development to proceed. Although there could be shown at that particular time that the pitch wasn't needed, this facility was lost in perpetuity. Needs and fashions for sport facilities change over time, but, once land is lost, there is no flexibility. Assessing Green Infrastructure, Sport and Recreation need should take account of future residents and changing desires/habits of the residents over time. The Draft doesn't do this.