Object

Representation ID: 25674

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

This chapter and the wider CS need to be updated to take account of the decision to cancel TUOC.

It is not clear whether the traffic modelling assesses the impact of the potential construction of Sizewell C.

Some form of northern relief road is required in order to implement the CS in a sound and effective manner as evidenced in the WSP reports. Model runs 2 and 6 should be provided as part of the consultation process to assess the revised CS. Some Ipswich junctions that are over-capacity have been omitted from the main report.

8.220 needs amending to "will".

Object

Representation ID: 25681

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

IBC is not doing enough to tackle the issue of air quality and must do more. Objective 11 of the current Local Plan should not be removed. The additional congestion from traffic modelling will worsen air quality and this is illegal and therefore would render the CS unsound.

The CS needs to comply with paragraph 181 of the NPPF and make a clear commitment to improving air quality in Ipswich and the compliance with legally binding air pollution targets.

Concerns and questions raised in relation to the Air Quality Topic Paper, AQMA and rail assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 25683

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

It remains unclear how 'severe' and 'significant' adverse impacts are defined. These need to be clearly defined in the CS. In the case of air quality, there are maximum legal limits for particulates and nitrous oxides, and it would be appropriate for 'significant' to be defined as the legal limit.

Object

Representation ID: 26142

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

IBC is already in breach of guidelines and requirements when assessing the impacts of development on air quality and needs to alter its practices to comply with the Core Strategy.