Monday 16 May 2022

Local Groups concerns-Fonnereau site on Ipswich Garden Suburb - IP/22/00036/REM - Land To South Of Railway Line Westerfield Road

 Local Groups concerns SOCS & North Fringe Protection Group

IP/22/00036/REM - Land To South Of Railway Line Westerfield Road

Objection: √ This feedback represents the 1000 resident’s continuing ongoing objections to Fonnereau Ipswich Garden Suburb development planning proposals - initially made in 2014 and in 2017.

Despite the intervening 6 years, it would appear few of the substantive concerns raised have been addressed; neither have they been adequately addressed within this application.

We suggest the application is inadequate, proposals 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 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 OF15 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 CSs Plans of neighbouring authorities with regard to housing, employment and especially transport/traffic and increased air pollution and traffic congestion.

There has been a growing recognition 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 relating to this Development (and the other IGS developments) have remained essentially constant since these proposals were put forward in 2004 Local Plan Process.

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.

 

  1. Public Health adverse Air Quality impacts, and premature deaths from the current and future likely increase in traffic, and the resulting critical increases in Air Pollution.

  2. Public Health adverse impacts from the lack of primary care services and current GP availability, no Health Impact Assessment was submitted for this application despite our requesting it in 2012, ( a weakness we identity due to long planning time frame) due to delays from 2017 and application 5 years on as reserve matters; no planned GP primary care provision requiring that new patients would have to travel to existing overloaded and inadequate GP services further exacerbating Air Quality problems.(See copy of the correspondence re FOI.)

  3. The real risk of overload, of Cliff Key, as advised by Anglian Water (for both Mersea Red House & Fonnereau) flood (see below) and resulting contamination (particularly of the Gipping area) from this and other cumulative development, No rivers in Suffolk currently meet government targets for good water quality, a report found. Strong measures are needed mitigating against Climate Change and from increasing adverse weather events.

    10 years on from the promise of an off site sewage plan for the Northern fringe, it appears no nearer any viable sustainable long term resolution. Suffolk’s rivers are in a parlous stage due to sewage pollution and lack of remedial measures or actions against it.1

  4. The current need to protect Farm Land and food production and food security issues. 

     

    THE FOLLOWING ON GOING ISSUES NEED TO BE FULLY AND ADEQUATELY ASSESSED

    Issues identified repeatedly but not resolved 2014, 2016, 2021, 2022

    1. DRAINAGE, Surface Water Drainage problem and Westerfield Water Course, Millennium Cemetery

    1. FLOODING LIKELIHOOD may increase at Westerfield.

    1. SEWAGE PROPOSALS INADEQUATE & likely to add to existing problems -Anglian W aware as are SCC.

      Suffolk County Council's flood risk management committee, which is due to meet on 17 May 2022 has been asked to take action to improve its rivers and water sources by opposition councillors from the Green, Liberal Democrat and Independent group, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service

    1. TRAFFIC PROPOSALS AND ADVERSE IMPACTS ON EXISTING RESIDENTS- no solutions

      Traffic Assessments Submitted in 2016 The TA was heavily flawed and didn’t include sufficient mitigation measures or additional highway structure that would prevent severe levels of congestion from additional traffic (even though the models under-estimate traffic volumes)." Suffolk County Council October 2016 agreed.

    1. AIR POLLUTION and impact on our children's health inadequate Air Pollution Action Planning

    1. ADVERSE PRESSURES ON HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS & ACCESS TO GPs and SOCIAL CARE

      No plans for health provision here on the IGS sites. * (See below recent evidence)

    1. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ROAD WIDENING and REMOVAL OF TREES & VERGES

    1. LOSS OF HIGH GRADE LOCAL FOOD GROWING LAND Grade 2 and 3

    1. REMOVAL OF TREES, HEDGEROWS, HABITATS – Rare Trees and TPOs -Loss of amenity

    1. BIODIVERSITY LOSS PROTECTED SPECIES -https://socsnews.blogspot.com/2015/12/please-help-record-important-sightings.html recorded and logged on site- badgers, owls and bats, hedgehogs

    1. PROBLEMS WITH ACCESS AND EXIT- Road Safety issues with, road constraints rail crossing schools

    1. Where is the NEED FOR THESE houses and flats bearing in mind the LACK OF NEW LOCAL JOB?

    1. POSSIBLE PROBLEM WITH ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY

    Full responses from SOCS and NFPG can be found here: 

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/12BWgCbQTgEBvSlbQ4kGEu1bDsFDfGDaq/view?usp=sharing

1https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-61396658 Suffolk's rivers fail to meet national quality targets, report says


1 Chair Tuddenham Road IP4

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)