Support

Representation ID: 469

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: The Ipswich Society

Very much in favour of improving retailing in the town centre with brownfield sites used for residential. Concerned at lack of plans for attracting new employment to the wider Ipswich area and reliance on service growth. Supportive of idea that varied and quality housing will attract people from London and its suburbs. Small speciality shops should be encouraged. Concerned that quality of design is not improving as much as hoped, policy DM5 needs to be strong so poor design is refused. Central Skyline policy and policy on out of town retail (DM23) are supported.

Object

Representation ID: 746

Received: 09/03/2014

Respondent: The Ipswich Society

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This should be a high density development of 2 storey homes rising to three/four close to centres. Whilst the SPD encourages sustainable transport, we see little to discourage car ownership and use when travelling off site. Innovative thinking is needed: the railway companies should consider providing services from Westerfield to Ipswich station and east-west bus services should be investigated. Cycle routes into Ipswich must be direct, convivial, convenient and prioritised over motor traffic. Correct provision of car parking on the site is a major challenge in terms of number and location. Traffic calming should be designed in throughout the development.

Object

Representation ID: 747

Received: 09/03/2014

Respondent: The Ipswich Society

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The triggers for infrastructure provision are welcomed, but they should not become barriers to further development. This could particularly be the case in the provision of the railway bridge (a notable expenditure). We would not want to see development stop when 300 houses are finished on Henley Gate.