Hemingstone

Showing comments 1 to 2 of 2

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16416

Received: 02/09/2019

Respondent: John Barrell

Representation:

SS1054 - a discounted site on basis that Flood Zone 2 and 3 affects 50% or more of the site.
Having assessed flooding mapping as defined by the Environment Agency we wish to contest the findings of the Draft SHELAA report on the basis that the identified Flood Zone 2 and 3 hatch areas do not follow the line of the mapped watercourse which runs to the south of the site.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17729

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Hemingstone Parish Council

Representation:

Hemingstone Parish Council welcomes its inclusion in the Plan as a Hamlet, and looks forward to housing development proposals being defined and constrained by Policy SP03, within the development boundary on page 358 of the draft. The Parish Council has no argument with the boundaries proposed.

Full text:

Hemingstone Parish Council welcomes its inclusion in the Local Plan as a Hamlet, and looks forward to housing development proposals being defined and constrained by Policy SP03, within the development boundary on page 358 of the draft plan. The Parish Council has no argument with the boundaries proposed.
However as the Parish Council unanimously opposes all three proposed routes for the Northern Ipswich Bypass, it therefore challenges the statement on page 51 of the Local Plan draft that “Babergh and Mid Suffolk Councils are both supportive of the Ipswich Northern Route project”.
That statement suggests widespread support for the routes, which simply does not exist.
The Parish Council believes that the consultation on the routes was itself faulty. A choice was presented, without first establishing whether there is a real social and economic argument for any of the routes, let alone whether public support exists for them.
There has been no proper public analysis or discussion of alternatives to the route(s) which would be more in keeping with today’s essential environmental priorities.
The supposed need for an additional 15,000+ houses in the northern Ipswich area has not been demonstrated, other than as a means of financing a road based on shaky economic and transport arguments.
The Parish Council also believes that more attention should be given to defining terms such as “sustainability” and “affordability”, which seem to be deployed without real care in support of a wide range of contradictory proposals.
It is difficult, in the view of the Parish Council, to resist the impression that the Northern Route has been added to the draft Local Plan without proper consideration, either of the environmental and social damage it will cause, or of the supposed economic benefits it might bring.