Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Search representations
Results for Suffolk Wildlife Trust search
New searchObject
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Chapter 5 - Ipswich - The Place
Representation ID: 26314
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Biodiversity Section currently states – “The need to halt biodiversity net loss.” Suggest this is amended to state - ”Prevent loss of biodiversity and implement measures for biodiversity net gain.” The government is mandating that, through the new Environment Bill, all development (with a few exceptions) will be required to secure gains in biodiversity. It is therefore not sufficient to state that there will be a halt in net loss.
Amend biodiversity section to "Prevent loss of biodiversity and implement measures for biodiversity net gain."
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Chapter 6 - Vision and Objectives
Representation ID: 26316
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
“9. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT – To protect and enhance high quality, accessible strategic and local open spaces rich in biodiversity and geodiversity for people to visit and use.“ Consider addition of reference to ecological networks and connectivity. NPPF references the need to establish, conserve, restore and enhance ecological networks under Paragraphs 173-d. and 174-b.
Consider addition of reference to ecological networks and connectivity.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Policy DM8 The Natural Environment
Representation ID: 26317
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Conditions a. and c. in relation to SSSI's clearly conflict with Paragraph 175b of the NPPF which only allows for Condition b. (benefits outweighing impacts). This Policy should be updated to reflect this.
Delete conditions a and c.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Policy DM12 Design and Character
Representation ID: 26318
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
In Policy DM12, point d. there should be an inclusion of the potential for installation of green roofs and walls as part of the strategy to introduce greener streets and spaces. This would make a more robust argument for the requirement for net gains in biodiversity.
point d. there should be an inclusion of the potential for installation of green roofs and walls as part of the strategy to introduce greener streets and spaces.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Policy DM15 Tall Buildings
Representation ID: 26320
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We have been informed by the RSPB that a suggestion was made to add a further point to DM15 – Tall Buildings with regards to the provision of swift bricks in new buildings. This is a sentiment we share at the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and we note that there are no references to Green Space or biodiversity measures within this policy, which appears to be a valuable missed opportunity. We propose the addition of a further point: k. to incorporate integrated swift bricks”. In addition to this, other biodiversity features could be noted here, such as
the provision of green walls and roofs which would help meet the biodiversity net gain requirements.
Insert criterion K "to incorporate integrated swift bricks” into policy wording.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Policy ISPA2 Strategic Infrastructure Priorities
Representation ID: 26321
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We consider that policy ISPA2 should also include delivery of strategic green infrastructure alongside the other types of infrastructure listed.
Include "strategic green infrastructure" in the list of infrastructure priorities.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Policy DM10 Green Corridors
Representation ID: 26326
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Two of the sites (IP143 and IP067b) make up a substantial part of Green Corridor F, forming the semi-natural habitat link between the south-western boundary of Landseer Park Carr County Wildlife Site (CWS) and the western boundary of the Volvo Raeburn Road CWS. If these sites are fully developed, this ecological network would be interrupted. This is the longest existing ecological network in Ipswich, and if sensitive development is undertaken in the Ravenswood area, then this corridor could be continued to the east. See suggested extension route.
Extend Green Corridor F as suggested.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Plan 5 Ipswich Ecological Network
Representation ID: 26327
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Two of the sites (IP143 and IP067b) make up a substantial part of Green Corridor F, forming the semi-natural habitat link between the south-western boundary of Landseer Park Carr County Wildlife Site (CWS) and the western boundary of the Volvo Raeburn Road CWS. If these sites are fully developed, this ecological network would be interrupted. This is the longest existing ecological network in Ipswich, and if sensitive development is undertaken in the Ravenswood area, then this corridor could be continued to the east. See suggested extension route. Map refers to Wildlife Audit 2012/2013, which is out-of-date (see 2019 update).
Extend Green Corridor F as suggested. Update Map to 2019.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Plan 6 Green Corridors
Representation ID: 26328
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Two of the sites (IP143 and IP067b) make up a substantial part of Green Corridor F, forming the semi-natural habitat link between the south-western boundary of Landseer Park Carr County Wildlife Site (CWS) and the western boundary of the Volvo Raeburn Road CWS. If these sites are fully developed, this ecological network would be interrupted. This is the longest existing ecological network in Ipswich, and if sensitive development is undertaken in the Ravenswood area, then this corridor could be continued to the east. See suggested extension route.
Extend Green Corridor F as suggested.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review - Final Draft
Policy DM17 Small Scale Infill and Backland Residential Developments
Representation ID: 26575
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
In addition to the points made under Policy DM17 regarding small scale residential developments for infill, backland or severance plots, a point should also be made to deny permission for any development which could result in an unacceptable loss of semi-natural habitat, which could be important in its own right, or support protected and/or priority species.
Add a point to the policy to deny permission for any development which could result in an unacceptable loss of semi-natural habitat, which could be important in its own right, or support protected and/or priority species