Housing Distribution Updated Preferred Option 7/09 Public
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Housing Distribution Updated Preferred Option 7/09 Public comments received and the Council’s response to issues raised May 2010 Housing Distribution Updated Preferred Option 7/09 The Council’s Response to issues raised Suffolk Coastal’s Cabinet agreed in July 2009 to consult with the community about the updated housing distribution contained in the latest version of the Local Development Framework’s (LDF) Core Strategy. Following the Core Strategy Preferred Options public consultation earlier in the year, and also taking account of the changing economic circumstances, the updated Core Strategy proposed to the LDF Task Group and then recommended by it to Cabinet involved a significant change in the distribution of housing, most notably in Felixstowe and Martlesham. We wanted to give everyone the opportunity to understand and comment upon the changes to the distribution of housing so we consulted with the public from 23 September 2009 until 18 November 2009. The consultation was very focused, concentrating on the updated housing distribution, and: • whether or not people thought that the reasons behind the changes are justified; • if they thought the broad strategy, which has achieved a large measure of agreement, will be better met as a result of these changes. Viewing responses Below are the public’s comments received in response to this consultation. The box after each comment refers to the Council’s response to the various issues raised. These responses are all shown at the end of the document. Please find your comments by using the search facility for your name or your respondent ID from the online consultation system. Clicking the red box will automatically take you to the Council’s responses at the end of the document where you are able to read those related to your own comments as well as all the other issues raised. Please note: only the text put directly into the consultation document is shown here. Any attachments are referred to but not included. The responses given refer to the full attachments which are available to view via the online consultation pages. IPSWICH POLICY AREA Respondent Name: A and R Clements [402] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 402 ID: 402 ID: SUBMISSION We moved into Waldringfield from London last year. Can you imagine the feeling, finding a bungalow in such a lovely part of the country, and one we could afford. We can't believe how you can consider building 2000 houses in the remote and wild life area. You must realise how crowded the A12. A14 and even the Kesgrave road is in rush hour, and as most young families have more than one car it will cause mayhem on the roads. If you go ahead with this plan, I think people will find they are cut off from the rest of the world because the Infrastructure won't be able to cope. SCDC Response: 13, 17, 19, 20 HOUSING DISTRIBUTION EAST OF IPSWICH Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION Where Martlesham Heath is concerned I am shocked that again you are focusing on road transport. This is contrary to high profile climate control and vital green initiatives. Why are we not focusing on developing our areas that have the significant benefit of existing railway stations and improving this network to support a mobile green workforce who do not need to use cars? Adastral New Town will have a massive detrimental impact on Woodbridge and a significant impact on Felixstowe. The opening of a Tesco Superstore impacted immensely on Woodbridge Town centre so what will a new neighbouring town do?? SCDC Response: 11 4 SO WHAT IS THIS REVISED HOUSING DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY CONSULTATION ALL ABOUT? Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION This is grossly misleading and contradictory. Martlesham Heath is not a 'larger settlement'...'where most people already live and work and services are concentrated..' It is a village, has limited choice of shopping facilities, limited public transport and facilities. For instance Woodbridge and Felixstowe have the significant existing benefit of railway links to help minimise carbon emmisions and support our green policy (if indeed the council has one?). Not to mention their established town centres offering choice. Both towns centres were suffering before the recession. What makes you think another neighbouring town without even a rail connection will solve the problem? SCDC Response: 11 3 BACKGROUND Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION I would like to know how many unoccupied properties we already have?? Our county has a higher level of older and retired people. You even highlight this. It is self evident this group are least likely to add further children to our population and longer term housing demands. If the number of elderly utilising care home places has declined,then please confirm the number of care home places say 5 years ago and the number now? Government housing needs were also based on an open door immigration policy that has now changed - what allowance has been made for this? SCDC Response: 3 Council tax records show there are 1969 empty properties. This figure does not include holiday homes but it does include properties that are unoccupied under "special" circumstances e.g. a property where the owner is deceased. 2 THE CONSULTATION IN BRIEF Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION Ipswich town is an eyesore. It is punctuated by unoccupied residential developments, plus un-utilised brownfield sites. Developers and landlords still cannot sell or get occupation of existing housing stock/commercial units. Speculative developments without the population to live in them, without a significant local employment increase, without first becoming more vibrant and welcoming, without a transport infrastructure. As evidenced do you really want to continue repeating this tangibly speculative haphazard planning nightmare in Martlesham Heath? You will repeat your mistake if you continue playing a housing numbers game creating an urban cancerous sprawl without regard for what is really needed. SCDC Response: 12, 13, 16 8 YOUR COMMENTS Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION STRATEGY - Has the council obtained a commitment from BT to remain at Adastral Park. Are we sure this is not an exit strategy for BT. The usual strategy in these circumstances would be for a high tech company in an outdated building to sell off the existing site currently occupied in order to fund a new modern green bespoke building next door or elsewhere?? Lets face facts it must be overdue. If it is part of a BT exit strategy, then all this housing and so called tech park etc will be an enormous white elephant. Done up like a kipper?? SCDC Response: 7, 21 APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF LDF EVIDENCE BASE STUDIES Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS - By stating that you will give 'priority to employers' confirms there will be insufficient capacity to support the domestic community. Currently Martlesham Heath obtain a maximum ADSL broadband speed of 1Mbit/s. It is already unlikely to meet the government target of 2Mbit/s by 2012. This is yet another area that fails to meet basic modern planning needs. We are hardly going to support green initiatives such as working from home if we have no plan to guarantee an improved broadband service. Somewhat ironic given it is BT at the root of this disastrous planning fiasco. SCDC Response: 20 APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF LDF EVIDENCE BASE STUDIES Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION ELECTRICITY - Yet again for a vital service that will not be able to support such a hugh development you plan on relying for funding on ' other mechanisms'. Please be so kind as to explain to us all precisely what 'other mechanisms' is. Quite simply I suspect it is just jargon for we do not have the money, we do not know where the money will come from, but we will just go ahead anyway without any plan, and complete disregard for the community and the finacial burdon it will create. SCDC Response: 20 APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF LDF EVIDENCE BASE STUDIES Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION POLICE - You clearly state, and it is logical, that such a significant increase in the local population will increase crime. The only financial 'plan' you have, and yes you've guessed it, is a 'developers contribution'. Yet again a short term sweetner to support a vital and essential public service. This is integral to the well being and safety of any community. You are treating it as such a very low priority that it borders on contempt for our community and what will be an overstretched police force. Shame on the planners. SCDC Response: 20 APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF LDF EVIDENCE BASE STUDIES Respondent Name: A Georgiou [173] Submission Agent Respondent ID: 173 ID: 173 ID: SUBMISSION HEALTH- This is diabolical and you have no plan. Even if there is a new GP surgery this will be little use if you do not have a hospital to support the population. The recent national survey on hospitals showed how poorly Ipswich Hospital is performing in various catagories, and yet you want to further burden it. It will be a disaster. You clearly state 2 significant financial phrases 'limited capacity' and 'funding is likely to be extremely limited'. This alone should stop the development in its tracks. If we cannot maintain existing health, then what are you thinking.