Object

Representation ID: 25839

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

The traffic-light scoring system used is inaccurate insofar as it relates to various sites within Ravenswood. The SA is also not consistent with the SHEELAA which again uses a traffic-light scoring system and incorrectly scores sites which are known to have negative issues. The SA results of each of the sites pertaining to the Ravenswood locality are questioned (IP150a, IP150b, IP150c (omitted), IP150d, IP150e and IP152). The SA does not assess sites cumulatively. These sites cumulatively have a negative impact on the SPA and visitor pressure is already too great and associated management too poor to allow further development here.

Object

Representation ID: 25840

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

The traffic-light scoring system used is inaccurate insofar as it relates to various sites within Ravenswood. The SA is also not consistent with the SHEELAA which again uses a traffic-light scoring system and incorrectly scores sites which are known to have negative issues. The SA results of each of the sites pertaining to the Ravenswood locality are questioned (IP150a, IP150b, IP150c (omitted), IP150d, IP150e and IP152). The SA does not assess sites cumulatively. These sites cumulatively have a negative impact on the SPA and visitor pressure is already too great and associated management too poor to allow further development here.

Object

Representation ID: 25848

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

IP150C - The Land Adjacent to Nacton Road does not appear in the SA and the site sheet for site IP150e suggests that this site should be masterplanned with IP150c but there is no policy to insist upon it. There should be a criteria based policy stating how the site can be delivered as part of a masterplan.

Object

Representation ID: 25852

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

IP150d+e: No justification for reverting from employment to housing. Traffic impact not assessed. Nothing to rule out piecemeal applications. It is visually and ecologically connected to the adjacent nature reserve. Density is higher than surroundings. Existing green infrastructure should be preserved. Need for green infrastructure will increase density. Vagueness about how it will come forward. Without a comprehensive and cumulative assessment of all proposals in this area the piecemeal developments would exacerbate bad planning impacts on biodiversity, green space, traffic, noise and air quality. A comprehensive proposal must be subject to EIA. Referred to as brownfield but clearly greenfield.