Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Comment

Representation ID: 25449

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Our authorities should plan for changes in transport, with a focus on encouraging sustainable and low carbon travel. Particularly in Ipswich, where journeys may be shorter than in the rural areas, our authorities should work towards an alignment of standards and design approaches.

Comment

Representation ID: 25450

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

The Upper Orwell Crossings offer enormous benefits for growth and development in Ipswich. Our authorities should work together to consider how the Local Plan might support the realisation of some of the benefits identified within the business case for the bridges. Other than the Upper Orwell Crossings, our authorities should work together to promote sustainable transport infrastructure and measures for increasing the quality of sustainable transport routes and permeability by sustainable modes. For example, there are several locations where new pedestrian and cycle bridges could overcome barriers to movement, such as Bull Road and the Rosehill Centre, or over the River Gipping between Hadleigh Road and Sproughton Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 25451

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

The County Council as Highway Authority will work with partners to consider what changes to the gyratory are necessary or desirable to improve connectivity between the town centre and Waterfront, based changes in traffic flows arising from the delivery of the Upper Orwell Crossings. There may be opportunities for local environmental improvements and better cycling connectivity between the east and west of the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 25452

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

A variety of measures are needed to tackle congestion in Ipswich. As identified in the Suffolk Local Transport Plan, the key change required in Ipswich is in behaviour, to increase travel by sustainable modes and reduce the use of motor vehicles. Whilst new development will make up only part of total demand on the highway network, our authorities can work to ensure that new development makes appropriate provision in respect of facilities for walking and cycling.
Our priorities should be to:
- Reduce the need to travel
- Make efficient use of transport networks
- Improve infrastructure

Comment

Representation ID: 25453

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

In some circumstances, S106 is the most appropriate way of securing developer contributions, in others CIL is more appropriate. The determining factor is the value to be derived from development against the cost of infrastructure. CIL is useful for the mitigation of cumulative impacts but does not currently function when the total cost of infrastructure will not be supported by the income from the levy. The Borough Council should give close consideration to the potential benefits of implementing of a tariff-based charge, but will clearly need to be mindful of the changes being proposed by Government.

Comment

Representation ID: 25454

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Along with the Borough Council and others, the County Council is a strong supporter of the Ipswich Vision. The County Council welcomes the consideration being given to a better alignment between the Ipswich Vision quarters and the zones identified in the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 25455

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Access to the natural environment and open space improves health and wellbeing by providing opportunities for physical activity, being beneficial to mental health and reducing health inequalities. If IBC does choose to re-allocate open space for housing, the need for people to access the outdoors should still be met. For all sites indicated in the plan, development proposals would need to be considered in relation to policies relating to archaeology. Factors to consider may be that for A, 3 skeletons were found in 1912, which may be evidence of more extensive burial, the site of St Botolphs Church lies between E and F, which may have implications for development, Sites M, N and O are in areas of cropmarks relating to historic settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 25456

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

The County Council would appreciate the opportunity to review Ipswich Borough Council's development management policies with Borough officers, once consideration has been given to the other comments made in respect of the development of this Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 25457

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Given the variety of spatial options which could, at this stage, come forward through the Plan, it is difficult to offer conclusive comments on the infrastructure which will be needed, but relevant issues to consider are as follows. Transport, see question 30; education, see question 32. Fire and Rescue: the Local Plan should create safe and accessible environments in respect of infrastructure needs, access by services and water supply. Libraries: modern libraries are the hub of communities and may be a relevant consideration in determining settlement hierarchy and levels of growth. Waste: the Plan should support sustainable waste management and reduce demand on waste infrastructure. Current facilities at Foxhall Road and Portman's Walk are over capacity.

Comment

Representation ID: 25458

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

The likely closure of the Rock Barracks around 2027 may have an impact on the spatial choices within Suffolk Coastal. Whilst redevelopment options are unknown, the infrastructure needed for different options for the site will vary. Owing to different traffic characteristics, for example, further traffic may be expected to use of the B1083 and A1152, which may not have sufficient capacity (see also comments on infrastructure - questions 29, 30, 32).