Suffolk Coastal Local Plan - Final Draft

Document Section Final Draft Local Plan 12 Strategy for Communities Surrounding Ipswich Land at Humber Doucy Lane, Rushmere St Andrew Policy SCLP12.24: Land at Humber Doucy Lane [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID 1335
Respondent Mayhew, J E [View all comments by this respondent]
Agent Robinson, Barbara
Response Date 25 Feb 2019
Do you consider this part of the Plan has met the tests of soundness? No
Details of Representation

Please be advised that land North of Humber Doucy Lane was debated at the Ipswich BC Plan Inquiry in 2016.

SOCS contested claims made by Kesgrave Covenant that they should have the land allocated from

Tuddenham Road and along the North of Humber Doucy Lane for housing and set for housing forthwith This land would include the Ruby Field sites. (See maps of both Suffolk Coastal and lpswich plans over page )

PLEASE let other affected residents know and question your local Councillors The following information may help you with the issues.

http://socsnews.blogspot.com/2019/01/suffolk-coastal-plan-review-final.html

The CS Plan fails to fully take adequate and comprehensive account of transport. air quality, economy and wastewater issues; specifically note the possibility that the viability of development of the 'Garden Suburb' , in combination with all the other cross boundary proposals such as East Coast Waveney may not be sustainably achieved due to the severe impact on air quality , traffic and lack of sewage infrastructure'.

WE SUGGEST THEREFORE THE PLANS ARE UNSOUND AND DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK NPPF

 

Growth, must be measured against the potential for serious adverse effects and serious adverse impacts, which included adverse impacts on the Quality of Life and Public Health.

The potential to secure a "sustainable future" for the existing local population, future populations and future generations is an imperative not demonstrated by this plan.

The "Climate Change" agenda is insufficiently addressed. Proposals are contrary to NPPF 10' Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.

It appears that environmental, social and economic effects of the plan are inadequately and inaccurately assessed against Habitats Regulations Assessments and the Sustainability Appraisals (SAs) "serious adverse effects" have not been properly identified, as required under compliance with the NPPF (Achieving Sustainable Development NPPF 6-17) for either the CS or development and control purposes.  This situation is likely to render any planning application almost impossible to determine properly and therefore, we say, render the major IGS planning applications problematic lt also potentially renders stakeholder responses to planning applications a problem.

NPPF- 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

 

TAKING FULL ACCOUNT OF CUMULATIVE AND COMPOND EFFECTS

The SEA Directive requires that the assessment include identification of cumulative and synergistic effects including those produced by other authorities such as neighbouring local authorities' The SA does not appear to take account of the cumulative effect of CSs of neighbouring authorities regarding housing, employment and especially transport/traffic with regards to increased air pollution and traffic congestion.

THESE ASPECTS NEED TO BE FULLY ASSESSED IN ORDER FOR THE CS SA TO BE SOUND

  1. DRAINAGE, Surface Water Drainage: APPEARS NON-COMPLIANT and may not work.
  2. FLOODING LIKELIHOOD may increase at Westerfield.
  3. SEWAGE PROPOSALS INADEQUATE & likely to add to existing problems (eg recently at Rushmere)
  4. TRAFFIC PROPOSALS AND ADVERSE IMPACTS ON EXISTING RESIDENTS – no solutions
  5. AIR POLLUTION and impact on our children’s health inadequate Air Pollution Action Planning
  6. ADVERSE PRESSURES ON HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS & ACCESS TO GPs and SOCIAL CARE
  7. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ROAD WIDENING and REMOVAL OF TREES & VERGES
  8. LOSS OF HIGH GRADE LOCAL FOOD GROWING LAND
  9. REMOVAL OF TREES, HEDGEROWS, HABITATS
  10. COUNTRY PARK – DELIVERY APPEARS UNLIKELY UNTIL 2025 or later
  11. Where is the NEED FOR THESE houses and flats bearing in mind the LACK OF NEW LOCAL JOBS?
Attachments
If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the public examination?
  • Not Applicable / No Answer
Being kept informed
  • Not Applicable / No Answer