Save Our Country Spaces – SOCS Hybrid Planning application IP/22/00013/OUTFL by Mersea Homes for the Red House Park development - Objection

 

Save Our Country Spaces – SOCS

Hybrid Planning application IP/22/00013/OUTFL by Mersea Homes for the Red House Park development.

Full Planning permission for the two principal means of vehicular access and all pedestrian and cycle accesses off Westerfield Road. Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for a mixed use development for up to 1,020 dwellings (Use Class C3), a local centre etc

Objection: √

SOCS endorse all points for IP/22/00013/OUTFL - raised in the full technical detail response by Brian Samuel on behalf of the North Fringe Protection group and submitted by SOCS as Appendix A.

This feedback represents the 1000 resident’s continuing ongoing objections to Mersea Homes Fonnereau/ Red House Ipswich Garden Suburb development planning proposals - initially made in 2014 and resubmitted in 2017.

•   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 the application.

•   The “Climate Change” agenda is insufficiently addressed. Proposals are contrary to NPPF 10- Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.

•   “Serious adverse effects” have not been properly identified, as required under compliance with the NPPF.

•   NPPF 6-17) Achieving Sustainable Development 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. It also potentially renders stakeholder responses to planning applications a problem.

•   NPPF-11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment is not adequately taken into account.

•   TAKING FULL ACCOUNT OF 16 CUMULATIVE AND COMPOUND ADVERSE EFFECTS: requires that the assessment include identification of cumulative and synergistic effects including those produced by other neighbouring local authorities. The SA does not appear to take account of the cumulative effect of Core Strategy Plans of neighbouring authorities with regard to housing, employment and especially transport/traffic and increased air pollution and traffic congestion.

Despite the intervening 6 years, it would appear few of the substantive concerns raised have been addressed. Nor have concerns raised during the pre application Consultation March 2021 been satisfied.

Neither have they been adequately addressed within this ‘hybrid’ Application.

We suggest the Application is inadequate, proposals
DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF)

There has been a growing recognitive of the adverse cumulative impacts of poorly delivered development, unwise planning approvals - (often due to the pressures on Local Authorities of the NFPP 5 year House supply issue) - compounded by the failure of the Local Plan system (as well as NPPF) to deliver sustainable expansion, sustainable economic growth and housing delivery.

The Key Sustainability issues and concerns raised by stakeholders and the public to date relating to Mersea Homes Development (and the other IGS developments) have remained essentially constant since these proposals were put forward in 2004 Local Plan Process. There is now an imperative to address issues such as Food security and protection of grade 2 land, address impacts from Air pollution and particulates, mitigate against increasing flood risks and foul sewer contamination, to halt biodiversity loss in order to address the Climate Change & Emergency and meet rigorous new targets on this before it is too late.

The Ipswich Garden Suburb SPD in SOCS view, whilst providing basic steer, is in need of a review to take account of significant developments and constraints, and major requirements such as carbon neutrality, Air Quality pollution improvements from particulates, and failure to allow mitigation against emerging world events- such as food supply and security.

Public opinion and feedback from residents to us indicate, that over the time, areas of concerns raised by residents and stakeholders have not been addressed nor sufficient mitigation established to have any confidence in either the need, viability or sustainability of this application.

SOCS endorse all points for IP/22/00013/OUTFL - raised in the full technical detail response by Brian Samuel on behalf of the North Fringe Protection group and submitted by SOCS as Appendix A with kind permission.

Please see  full combined response from SOCS & NFPG here;

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pKXyo8i2HMqId9zZyBNQPpFoc0_k-BpV/view?usp=sharing