Object

Representation ID: 5555

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Plan is not legally compliant and fails to comply with the duty to co-operate by failing to appropriately "identify significant cross boundary and inter-authority issues" and by failing to ensure that the plan rests on a credible evidence base. It also fails on duty to co-operate with adjacent local authorities, and with the Marine Management Organisation. If the plan cannot demonstrate effective joint working to meet cross-boundary strategic priorities, the public fear their quality of life, health and wellbeing will be at stake. The plan fails to demonstrate a positive approach to 'Localism'. Endorse NFPG points also.

Object

Representation ID: 5556

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS major concern relates to non compliance of CS1 with the NPPF. Traffic problems, congestion & gridlock fail NPPF requirements for no "serious adverse effects". Air Pollution, increased human mortality and Public Health risks from traffic are identified in 2000 as a serious and growing problem in Ipswich which mitigation measures appear not to have alleviated. IBC hasn't the capacity to control likely serious adverse impacts via DM Policies on Transport, Traffic congestion, Air Pollution, Flood Risk, Potable Water and Sewage Requirements. There is insufficient work on likely Climatic Change impacts and Cumulative Impacts with Suffolk Coastal District growth plans.

Object

Representation ID: 5566

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Concerned about how infrastructure will cope with growth, including hospitals, schools, GPs, social care, drainage, sewerage, transport. Support the aspiration to identify the infrastructure required to deliver development, but wish to see developer contributions for major "off-site" road infrastructure discussed within this plan and the obligation to mitigate adverse traffic effects reinstated. There is no indication of how necessary infrastructure can be achieved. Requirements are unlikely to be met in a timely, sustainable manner. If the plan cannot demonstrate effective joint working to meet cross-boundary strategic priorities, we fear Quality of Life will be at stake. Endorse NFPG points also.

Support

Representation ID: 5567

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

SOCS support extending the plan period from 2027 to 2031.

Object

Representation ID: 5568

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The manner of "last minute", poorly drafted "revisions" to the Executive paper on the 15th October [2013] on CS10 were unacceptable, and in breach of protocols and SCI. The subsequent failure by IBC to properly clarify the changes and place them in the public domain in a timely and transparent fashion added to the confusion and was not in the public interest. The revisions make a fundamental change in direction that has "seriously undesirable unintended consequences" which should be properly referenced, appraised and evaluated within the SA. The CS10 changes are not properly referenced nor track-changed within the SASR.

Object

Representation ID: 5570

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy.

Object

Representation ID: 5571

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Expect further gridlock and adverse impacts on existing residents and the local economy, which the plan will not remedy. Endorse the Northern Fringe Protections Group's points also.

Object

Representation ID: 5573

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to the requirement for 13,500 homes. It requires a big increase on current building levels and those since 2008. SOCS do not support this figure as justified or necessary. IBC appear to be "letting the tail wag the dog." Threats from unsustainable development via the lack of 5 year supply, should not force the Borough into proposing an inadequate plan. The plan must have balance and be both job and homes led. Growth should not be a "given" if the circumstances are adverse and dictate otherwise. Localism (public views) should be given greater weighting. Endorse NFPG points also.

Object

Representation ID: 5581

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

How will infrastructure be provided for 3,500 dwellings at IGS plus 10,000 homes elsewhere? Will the Country Park be delivered in a timely/successful fashion? The Multi-start approach is not sustainable and may cause environmental damage, loss of quality of life, the imposition of high urban densities, and loss of soil, biodiversity, heritage, trees and ancient hedgerows, and prime food growing farmland. It is unacceptable. Multi-starts may infringe Human Rights (case law re. freedom from noise pollution in Copenhagen). Need a moratorium from growth pressures so IBC can address long term issues, e.g. resourcing major road infrastructure. Endorse NFPG points also.

Object

Representation ID: 5584

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Are 13,500 homes needed, are they desirable, and are they deliverable? SOCS do not support this figure as justified or necessary. SOCS believe the 12,500 jobs target is unrealistic and undeliverable. There has been no real jobs growth since 2001 and public sector jobs are set to reduce. This is unsustainable and not compliant with the NPPF. Endorse NFPG points also.