Object

Representation ID: 5762

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The muddled presentation of the housing requirement in the opening of the document set the tone for the rest of the report. The scope sometimes includes the whole Ipswich Policy Area (IPA), e.g. available locations for all 13000+ homes, and sometimes does not, e.g. road access to the north of Ipswich. Housing requirements: of 13,550 for the period 2011-2031, 10,585 new sites are needed. 4,734 are identified within Ipswich Borough, including the IGS, with a further 1,800 properties to be built on 'windfall' sites. This leaves 4051 to be built within the IPA, but outside Ipswich Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 5763

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The plan seems to be oblivious to risk:
1. consciously opting to develop flood plains,
2. dismissing the consequences of no clear strategy for East West traffic (particularly around the wet dock area),
3. dismissing the A14 and northern Ipswich traffic issues as out of its scope,
4. inward-looking focus regarding traffic infrastructure for Ipswich Garden Village, ignoring areas outside the Borough boundary.
The Parish Council have deep concerns about the viability and sustainability of the plan, particularly the impact of failings on Tuddenham St Martin residents and environment, and the presumption being made about areas in neighbouring authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 5764

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The plan seems to be oblivious to risk: dismissing the consequences of no clear strategy for East-West traffic (particularly around the wet dock area), dismissing the A14 and northern Ipswich traffic issues as out of its scope, having an inward-looking focus regarding traffic infrastructure for Ipswich Garden Village, ignoring areas outside the Borough boundary. The Key Transport Proposal is not sound. The proposal to work with neighbouring authorities and Suffolk County Council to investigate a northern bypass raises concerns as any northern bypass would result in Westerfield, and neighbouring villages, losing their individual identities, and becoming part of Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 5765

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policies written in general terms are selectively chosen, particularly for example with regard to relying on the scope of the Ipswich Policy Area. At times the scope of the plan covers the whole Ipswich Policy Area but at others times it does not. The Parish Council have concerns about the impact of the plan on Tuddenham St Martin, and the presumption being made in relation to areas in neighbouring authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 5766

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objectives seem muddled, sometimes in conflict, sometimes not measured and sometimes only aspirations.

Object

Representation ID: 5767

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to inward-looking focus regarding traffic infrastructure for Ipswich Garden Village, ignoring anything outside the Borough boundary. The Parish Council have severe reservations about the predicted peak hour traffic generation, which is based on surveyed traffic for similar housing areas. Suffolk Constabulary measured traffic through Tuddenham St Martin: 30,000 vehicles travelled through the village in one week, last November. This brings in to disrepute the traffic modelling work using old census data. This concern has been raised before with Ipswich Borough Council and Suffolk County Council but no reply has been received. Concerned about the plan's impacts on the village.