Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft

Object

Representation ID: 26331

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The plan is poorly prepared and presented and is very difficult to read. It lacks justification and its policies are neither useful to developers or decisionmakers. It is the most poorly presented plan in the region. It needs to demonstrate cross boundary working as happens in Greater Norwich and Greater Cambridge and it needs criteria based policies so that it can be held to account by the public and used successfully by developers. It is vague and the environmental impacts are not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 26332

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 26333

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The plan has not been positively prepared and is poorly presented in an illogical way. There is no cooperation between local authorities such as has happened around Cambridge or Norwich. The plan contains disjointed lists of sites and does nothing to assist decision makers to establish what is or is not acceptable or how various constraints would be overcome.

Object

Representation ID: 26334

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Online consultation refers to this as being sites Sand T but these were built out prior to April 2019, The correct reference should be sites U, V, W. It is questioned whether these can be stated as having planning permission as they relate to an historic Outline Planning Permission which is no longer extant.

Object

Representation ID: 26335

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Sports Park proposal is vague and unjustified. The plan does not explain what a sports park is or how the ecological impacts of its development would be mitigated

Object

Representation ID: 26336

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Ravenswood employment sites should be planned so as to mitigate traffic impacts and be masterplanned with residential development

Object

Representation ID: 26337

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Policy is supported by site sheets in an appendix. The appendix should make it clear that the site sheets are or are not part of the plan. The plan is vague and unjustified. Site IP150 e is adjacent to other sites such as IP150c and IP150e and IP150d. These are geographically related but they are separate in the plan. There is no justification for this piecemeal approach. The plan highlights serious traffic, air-quality, ecology, amenity and heritage constraints but does nothing to resolve these and does not insist upon materplanning and effective mitigation.

Object

Representation ID: 26338

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Site IP150d is proposed for 34 homes but its contrived and unjustified shape demonstrates that it cannot accommodate 34 homes as frontage development. The site is of considerable ecological value and is used as Public Open Space. If it is to be developed then it should be masterplanned with other sites as part of one mixed use criteria based policy

Object

Representation ID: 26339

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The plan is proposes site IP152 and site IP150c for a total of 30,000 sqm of business and industry and sui generis uses. There is absolutely no justification for this significant development and no explanation of how it will relate to site IP150b and IP150e when traffic, air quality, noise, heritage and ecological constraints must be resolved comprehensively. The plan does nothing to justify or mitigate its impacts and does not insist upon a new major access to this development area. It merely implies that impacts need to be looked at. Masterplanning and EIA must be insisted upon

Object

Representation ID: 26630

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The plan is proposes site IP152 and site IP150c for a total of 30,000 sqm of business and industry and sui generis uses. There is absolutely no justification for this significant development and no explanation of how it will relate to site IP150b and IP150e when traffic, air quality, noise, heritage and ecological constraints must be resolved comprehensively. The plan does nothing to justify or mitigate its impacts and does not insist upon a new major access to this development area. It merely implies that impacts need to be looked at. Masterplanning and EIA must be insisted upon