ipswich.gov.uk

Policy CS20 Key Transport Proposals

Showing comments and forms 1 to 14 of 14

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26291

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: West Suffolk (Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

“Key transport proposals needed to mitigate the traffic impacts within Ipswich of planned growth….” In order to be effective, it is suggested that criteria (i) is added, “improvements to the rail line.” This will enable matters such as the Ipswich to Cambridge rail line to remain a strategic priority. The East West Rail Eastern Section Group is actively working to increase passenger rail frequencies.

Change suggested by respondent:

Add criterion i; "improvements to the rail line.”

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26365

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

IBC is failing to Improve Access in breach of CS20. 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 our comments on CS20 in relation to the transport modelling and modal shift haven't been adequately considered. Transport Mitigation Strategy and other relevant modal shift documents not included in Evidence Base. New infrastructure required is substantially underestimated as is the difficulty in achieving the unprecedented levels of modal shift necessary. See detailed comments on Transport Modelling and Mitigation Strategy (pages 26 - 32). Amend 8.241.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amend paragraph 8.241 to "Air Quality Management Areas are designated in areas where poor air quality will have an
effect on people’s health”.

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26385

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

IBC must explain why elected leader believes Ipswich cannot cope with existing volumes of traffic and that it's sound to increase traffic. Needs to recognise that SCC is concerned about traffic volume management and announced that it's establishing a taskforce to look at new ways of tackling the town's traffic. See David Ellesmere quote re; Europa Way/ Bramford Road link. TUOC and Northern Route not proceeding. Substantial evidence of modal shift delivery and funding needed to demonstrate this achievable. ISPA modelling needs to include additional highway schemes (see list). Ambiguity over delivery dates and funding. Detailed comments on mitigation strategy.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Attachments:

Support

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26412

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

Agent: East Suffolk Council

Representation Summary:

The Council is supportive of IBC's positive commitment to the delivery and funding of mitigation through a transport mitigation strategy as part of collaborative working through the ISPA board. This is consistent with the ISPA Statement of Common Ground which sets out a commitment to produce a mitigation and funding strategy to mitigate the highways impact of growth across the ISPA authorities. The potential measures outlined in Policy CS20 are consistent with the potential measures outlined in the Suffolk County Council's Transport Mitigtaion Strategy.

Change suggested by respondent:

N/A

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26461

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

Representation Summary:

In respect of a ‘Transport Mitigation Strategy’ for the Ipswich Strategic Planning Area, this paragraph states: ‘Detailed measures, costings and a mechanism for collecting the contributions from the planned growth will be determined through the ISPA Board’. Additional text needs to be added to also say, ‘… and to be agreed by each respective local planning authority’.

Change suggested by respondent:

Additional text needs to be added to also say, ‘… and to be agreed by each respective local planning authority’.

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26462

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

Representation Summary:

Object to reference to an Ipswich Northern Route as this is no longer supported by Babergh or Mid Suffolk District Councils. However, appreciate that the decision by Suffolk County Council to not pursue funding for an Ipswich Northern Route was made after the emerging Ipswich Local Plan was published for consultation.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26473

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Welcome intention to make case for highway improvements including Wet Dock Crossing. Support recognition (para 8.243) that provision of Wet Dock Crossing is not a pre-requisite of access improvements to enable development. Whilst supportive of redevelopment of Island Site, delivery is dependent on commercial viability. Until satisfactory scheme agreed, reserve right to use site as operational port area and to restrict access. Disagree with reference to requirement of road bridge to enable development at Island Site (para 8.247) - request removal. Access required will depend on development - reduced density of approximately 150 units, may not require additional vehicular access.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not appropriate to be so prescriptive about the need for a new road bridge and we would request the removal of reference to it:
“at a minimum, a road bridge from the west bank to the Island Site…will be required to enable any significant development on the Island”.

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26495

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

IBC is failing to Improve Access in breach of CS20. 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 our comments on CS20 in relation to the transport modelling and modal shift haven't been adequately considered. Transport Mitigation Strategy and other relevant modal shift documents not included in Evidence Base. New infrastructure required is substantially underestimated as is the difficulty in achieving the unprecedented levels of modal shift necessary. See detailed comments on Transport Modelling and Mitigation Strategy (pages 26 - 32). Amend 8.241.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amend paragraph 8.241 to "Air Quality Management Areas are designated in areas where poor air quality will have an effect on people’s health”.

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26511

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

IBC must explain why elected leader believes Ipswich cannot cope with existing volumes of traffic and that it's sound to increase traffic. Needs to recognise that SCC is concerned about traffic volume management and announced that it's establishing a taskforce to look at new ways of tackling the town's traffic. See David Ellesmere quote re; Europa Way/ Bramford Road link. TUOC and Northern Route not proceeding. Substantial evidence of modal shift delivery and funding needed to demonstrate this achievable. ISPA modelling needs to include additional highway schemes (see list). Ambiguity over delivery dates and funding. Detailed comments on mitigation strategy.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26551

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Cycle Ipswich

Agent: Cycle Ipswich

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Local plan not radical enough. To solve air quality, obesity, health issues due to physical inactivity, traffic congestion, etc, there needs to be change in modal shift and improved walking and cycling infrastructure. Park and Ride facilities negatively impact on rural bus services outside of Ipswich. Rural services should be prioritised over park and rides. Nothing in CS20 about reducing rat running on residential roads, increasing use of 20mph speed limits, nor implementing protected cycle tracks - key to achieving required modal shift to reduce congestion and air pollution. Proposals likely to have little effect on walking and cycling levels.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26574

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Reference to the Transport Mitigation Strategy for the ISPA is welcome and supported, as is the focus on sustainable transport measures. SCC Transport Model highlights that growth in Ipswich and surrounding districts may cause severe impacts on the highway network within and around Ipswich, which cannot be addressed through improvements to the highway alone. The County Council considers the appropriate strategy to be maximising sustainable transport in order to achieve a significant proportion of modal shift in both the new and existing population. The Suffolk County Council Transport Mitigation Strategy needs to be included in the Local Plan evidence base.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Suffolk County Council Transport Mitigation Strategy needs to be included in the Local Plan evidence base.

Attachments:

Support

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26589

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Agent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Representation Summary:

The draft Local Plan identifies a package of transport mitigation measures to reduce vehicle movements and Suffolk County Council as the Highway Authority has developed a strategy which contains a package of mitigation measures to deliver modal shift and mitigate impacts on the wider Ipswich highways network.
These include:
- Transport infrastructure to encourage and support sustainable modes of transport
- A Bus Quality Partnership
- A Smarter Choices programme
- Review of car parking and pricing strategies
- Review of park and ride strategy
- Junction improvements
Highways England supports this strategy.

Change suggested by respondent:

N/A

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26601

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

Representation Summary:

Evidence base provides indicative proposals for upgrading junctions along A14 and potentially cost-effective measures for resolving link and junction capacity problems arising from growth. Potential measures include proposals to re-establish Bury Road Park and Ride and provision of a new site in Nacton Road. Consider these are potentially feasible options. However, measures will not address underlining A14 capacity issues. Further measures may be required e.g. variable mandatory speed limits, and substantial improvements at Junction 55 (Copdock). Funding of measures is an issue. At this stage there is no certainty of the availability of future Highways England capital funding programme funding.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Attachments:

Object

Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft

Representation ID: 26627

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Councillor Oliver Holmes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Transport is an area of weakness. Upper Orwell Crossings and Ipswich Northern Route were abandoned by SCC. No evidence that Suffolk will provide any major infrastructure during plan period. In these circumstances, all development in Ipswich will add to existing congestion with no reductions in carbon and an increase in pollution and AQMAs. Makes Draft unsound on a fundamental level. Argument can be made that no major development should take place which would increase traffic until an effective town wide mitigation strategy is in place. Reference to Park and Ride schemes aspirational. No evidence SCC or IBC will fund them.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Attachments: