ipswich.gov.uk

Policy DM21 Transport and Access in New Developments

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

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

Representation ID: 26295

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)

Agent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

HBF would prefer a national and standardised approach to the provision of electrical charging points in new residential developments. We would like this to be implemented through the Building Regulations rather than through local planning policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

Suggest that part c is deleted.

Object

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

Representation ID: 26307

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Whilst no objections are raised in respect of the majority of the provisions of this policy, we are concerned that a requirement that all new development should have access to public transport within 400m is neither justified (in terms of its being a fixed requirement) nor likely to mean that the Plan is effective overall in delivering the number of new homes required, because there are some locations where a strict adherence to 400m is unlikely to be achievable.

Change suggested by respondent:

Please see full representation text for proposed changes.

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 26355

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)

Agent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Part c is unsound as it is not justified.
Issues with the policy -
Lacks clarity, as it does not state the amount of charging points to be provided.
Needs to specify the quantum and type of provision sought.
Policy should be supported by evidence demonstrating technical feasibility and financial viability, including confirmation of engagement with the main energy suppliers to determine network capacity.

Change suggested by respondent:

Without the necessary justification and clarity, we would suggest that part c is deleted.

Object

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

Representation ID: 26481

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to removal crtierion a. Specifically; “rights of way or the local road network in respect of traffic capacity” must be reinstated as walking/ cycling shouldn't be reduced as traffic congestion is a major problem and local new developments shouldn't negatively impact. Changes conflict with CS5. Support change regarding highway safety (criterion B). However IGS is non-compliant as failed to assess impacts of development on air quality. Revised assessment of air quality impacts of IGS urgently required before commencement. Unclear how ‘severe’ and ‘significant’ impacts defined. Maximum legal limits for particulates and nitrous oxides, and this should be ‘significant’.

Change suggested by respondent:

Reinstate criterion a.

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 26538

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to removal crtierion a. Specifically; “rights of way or the local road network in respect of traffic capacity” must be reinstated as walking/ cycling shouldn't be reduced as traffic congestion is a major problem and local new developments shouldn't negatively impact. Changes conflict with CS5. Support change regarding highway safety (criterion B). However IGS is non-compliant as failed to assess impacts of development on air quality. Revised assessment of air quality impacts of IGS urgently required before commencement. Unclear how ‘severe’ and ‘significant’ impacts defined. Maximum legal limits for particulates and nitrous oxides, and this should be ‘significant’.

Change suggested by respondent:

Reinstate criterion a.

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 26576

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

DM21 is not in line with national policy in relation to the lack of explanation as to when travel plans are required. The importance of travel plans in achieving modal shift is stated in the SCC Transport Mitigation Strategy for ISPA. A similar approach should be taken with Travel Plans as for Transport Statements and Assessments. The Plan’s explanatory text should refer to the indicative threshold set out in County Council guidance, with the caveat that in some sensitive areas, e.g. affecting Air Quality Management Areas, full travel plans may be required where normally Travel Plan Measures would be acceptable.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amendments to the policy are recommended below.
Final paragraph of policy: “The Council will expect (delete: major) development proposals to provide a travel plan or travel plan measures where appropriate, to explain how sustainable patterns of travel to and from the site will be achieved.” Amend paragraph 9.21.8 to further explain the travel plan guidance and what is determined to be appropriate. “The County Council's Suffolk Travel Plan Guidance, which contains indicative thresholds, will be used to determine the need for a Travel Plan or Travel Plan Measures. Some smaller sites which do not meet the requirements for a full Travel Plan, but are in sensitive locations may require a full Travel Plan to help mitigate traffic impacts.”

Attachments: