ipswich.gov.uk

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Search Representations

Results for Ipswich Limited search

New search New search

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 1:

Representation ID: 25256

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

The Local Plan is too focused on residential aspects with very little regard to employment, environment and infrastructure. Ipswich has significant employment in sectors which are under threat when the UK exits the EU. Ipswich has a significant problem with homelessness there must be inclusion of a strategy to deal with this problem.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 4:

Representation ID: 25257

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

Two tier local government doesn't work. The entire south east area of Suffolk deeply relies on each other, however, infrastructure, public transport and joined-up planning is appalling or non-existent. Many places have got out of this mess through a unitary authority.
Ipswich desperately needs serious road infrastructure upgrades. Unfortunately the only proposal on the table - an Upper Orwell Crossing - is not suitable.
Ipswich needs to establish its own science park and/or tech park. Emphasis should be against retail parks and light industrial estates. Suffolk should exceed as being a county with its own highly successful tech cluster county-wide. With developments of a film studio at Bentwaters in the
pipework, Suffolk can soon become the Suffolk Powerhouse it should be.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 5:

Representation ID: 25402

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

The boundary of Ipswich needs to be expanded as a matter of urgency. This Greater Ipswich needs two MPs, should be a unitary authority.
The Ipswich Central BID needs to be abolished.
Infrastructure needs to be an urgent priority. A dual carriageway Northern Bypass, rail network expansion and Copdock Interchange junction upgrades as a minimum. Park & Ride needs to be revisited understanding the concept requires subsidy rather than being self-sustainable.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 8:

Representation ID: 25403

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

Not at all. No one wants new homes, commercial property, power stations, roads or incinerators built near them. This quirk is also evident in those living in new builds, not just property that is well established or those who have lived in the area for generations.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 9:

Representation ID: 25404

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

There should be an in-line platform rail station in South East Ipswich where traffic is a major concern especially around rush hour. (An additional rail spur (north) to near Adastral Park would also be sensible. It won't be cheap but if we don't endeavour for it the money will go elsewhere.
A full dual carriageway Northern Bypass goes without saying, however, a "northern route" or "relief road" is inadequate. There must be the understanding that Felixstowe HGV traffic should not be going through the Ipswich road network at all, especially near to residential areas, hence
the Upper Orwell Crossings isn't suitable.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 10:

Representation ID: 25405

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

No. The Orwell Bridge is a bottleneck. Assuming no problems with nearby trunk roads the Ipswich road network is largely inadequate for the number of vehicles using it.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 22:

Representation ID: 25406

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

The long-throw nature of Ipswich Town Centre from what was the West Gate to the East Gate, should be restored.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 27:

Representation ID: 25407

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

There is a worrying trend of retail parks selling non-bulky items which is unacceptable competition for the town centre. Whether it is B&M or Currys PC World, most of the products are small enough to not be impractical to purchasing in the town centre.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 28

Representation ID: 25408

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

Retail parks are centres in their own right. If local shops can be designated as local centres and district centres, the much larger floorspace retail units can definitely be considered centres in their own right, especially with the nature of them being a destination.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Question 29:

Representation ID: 25409

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Representation Summary:

A dual carriageway Northern Bypass, Copdock Interchange and Nacton junction upgrades, and rail upgrades as specified above in another question.

Full text:

See attached.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.