Reg 19 Online Submissions Name/ Appear at LBR Rep ID Summary of Representation Organisation EIP? *Soundness? Yes R00001/01 Roman Sudak *Legally Compliant? Yes *Duty to Cooperate? Yes *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? Any further development in South Woodford would add to the already overstretched services and the inadequate transport infastructure, particularly traffic which is R00002/01 Simon lang already oversaturated at peak times. *Soundness Improvements? Expand housing in areas with the infastructure to cope e.g. Ilford. *Legally Compliant? Don't know *Duty to Cooperate? Don't know Jennifer *Soundness? Don't know R00004/01 Gaughan *Soundness Comments? South Woodford is already too crowded Schools cannot cope and the catchment areas will shrink as a result and mean residents on the outskirts of the area will need to go further out. The character of the area will change for the worse, R00005/01 Bill Hobort including the skyline and faces of the roads. South Woodf Andrew *Soundness? Don't know R00006/01 MacRae, *Legally Compliant? Don't know Bealonians FC Meral Boztas R00007/01 *Soundness? Don't know Arpaci *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? You have plans to build on Eaton Court plan 114 without due consideration of the residents and impact on the local area which is already at saturation point as far as traffic and demand on the local facilities are concerned. My daughter lives in Eaton Court and I fail to see where any additional parking would be provided in the underground parking area which allocates one space per flat. Susan Beard, The noise and intrusion of the peresent residents is totally unjustified many of whom are night workers as these flats are designated for key workers.Ill concieved, thoughtless,greedy planning R00011/01 The Prince's trying to squeeze in extra housing. These existing flats are already rabbit hutch size and to add more is immoral. Trust *Soundness Improvements? Leave the Eaton Court plan out of your thinking. *Legally Compliant? Don't know *Duty to Cooperate? Don't know *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? Housing development population forecasts R00012/01 Neil Pickering *Soundness Improvements? rethink policy on residential planning *Legally Compliant? Yes *Duty to Cooperate? Yes *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? It is outrageous anyone can support building on Oakfield site Do not build on Oakfield! Use all the possible brown field sites. *Legally Compliant? No R00014/01 James Foley *Legally Compliant Comments? Building on greenbelt land. *Legally Compliant Improvements? Do not build on Oakfield. *Duty to Cooperate? Don't know LB Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 Reg 19 Representations Online Submissions Page 1 of 171 Reg 19 Online Submissions Name/ Appear at LBR Rep ID Summary of Representation Organisation EIP? *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? New houses should not go over facilities to keep people fit and healthy. Active lifestyles are essential to good health for years to come. The planning does not consider the Caoimhe risks of this properly. New houses may be needed but they should not put the health and wellbeing of others at risk. R00016/01 OReilly *Soundness Improvements? Build on land that is not essential for commun wellbeing. Local authorities also have a responsibly towards public health *Legally Compliant? Don't know *Duty to Cooperate? Don't know *Soundness? Yes *Soundness Comments? The Theatres Trust finds Policy LP17 sound in that it reflects guidance provided in para. 70 of the NPPF in reflation to the safeguarding of cultural facilities. New facilities Ross Anthony R00017/01 are also encouraged in both LP17 and LP 10. Theatres Trust *Legally Compliant? Yes *Duty to Cooperate? Yes *Soundness? Don't know I am more concerned about the "(litter)" which gets disposed on sidewalks with ample amount of "(take away shops)" which have sprung in Ilford. The "(litter)" is an endemic problem with "(food stains, chewing gums)" blighting sidewalks and never gets cleaned. Proposing this new scheme/project and financial resources will only exacerbate the problem of "(cleanliness)" once this grandiose town planning implementation is completed. With town planning comes the responsibility of cleanliness which Ilford is not anymore. AMJAD R00018/01 Ilford lane had new sidewalks initiated in recent years and go and have look how dirty/filthy the sidewalks are mostly due food stains and food garbage disposed on the sidewalks. This also implies FARHAT to "(public beddings)" where litter never gets picked up. Further town planning's to rejuvenate is fine only if cleanliness as mentioned above is simultaneously catered for. Don't know My concerns have already been elaborated on the previous page. Don't know *Soundness? No Plan is flawed because it focus on reactive instead of proactive planning. Building homes for uncontrolled immigration is at the expense of tax payers and causes unnecessary over crowdingon Proposed local plan should address any existing overcrowding areas regarding schools and housing. Local Plans should not be designed to reflect future expectations of population due to overspill juliette from other London Boroughs or what the local council do not measure regarding population flow R00019/01 Williams *Legally Compliant? No Yes edgeC *Legally Compliant Comments? Unnecessary to build on green spaces *Legally Compliant Improvements? Residents should be consulted earlier in process of town planning to review and discuss with MP *Duty to Cooperate? No *Duty to Cooperate Comments? Notified of local plan through online news article means taxpayers not kept in loop of changes *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? I do appreciate the enormous amount of work that has gone into preparing the local plan and I have the following observations. Although there is much definition on the R00021/01 doug harrison Yes number of increased homes required, there is no definition on the increase in health and care infrastructure--these are defined as TBC and critical on page 163. Where are these facilities going to be and what is being done about increased hospital and doctor facilities. There is no definition on what road infrastructure requirements are required--these I believe need to be planned now to avoid traffic congestion and associated vehicle emissions.I cannot see any provision for incentives for people to use electric vehicles. I also cannot see any provision for additional police stations and additional police resources. Evaluate the issues raised in comments made and develop plans to address as part of the Local Plan.Add priorities to each of the proposed actions within the plan to effectively ensure that plans are funded on a priority basis. R00021/02 doug harrison Don't know I am not a lawyer so cannot comment Don't know I am not a lawyer so cannot comment. LB Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 Reg 19 Representations Online Submissions Page 2 of 171 Reg 19 Online Submissions Name/ Appear at LBR Rep ID Summary of Representation Organisation EIP? sarah marks *Soundness? Yes chadwell R00022/01 *Legally Compliant? Yes heath *Duty to Cooperate? Yes academy *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? paras 6.1.5 and 6.1.6 assert that the proposal to reduce Green Belt Land has adequately considered the intended permanence of green belt boundaries, and that the identified shortage of housing demonstrates “exceptional circumstances” to justify a review and adjustment of the borough’s Green Belt boundaries. This is not exception - indeed, it is the R00023/01 T Levine opposite of exception, and is the very reason green belt designations were created - to prevent encroachment of urban development. It would certainly be easier and financially attractive for the Council to use this land for development, rather than finding alternative housing proposals, but these are not relevant factors, and as such it would not be legal to undertake such a development. *Soundness Improvements? This is not a matter of policy - the NPPF is correct as written, as are the green belt laws - the Local Plan should simply not be promoting development on Green Belt Land. *Legally Compliant? No R00023/02 T Levine *Legally Compliant Comments? The proposals to develop green belt land do not meet the required criteria of “exceptional circumstances” to justify a review and adjustment of the borough’s Green Belt boundaries *Legally Compliant Improvements? The Plan should not contain proposals to develop Green Belt Land as they are justified simply on the basis of a shortage of housing *Duty to Cooperate? Don't know *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? It makes no sense to build housing without local infrastructure to support it, particularly school, green play spaces, doctors, parking etc. You need to ensure the amount of R00028/01 Cate Jolley housing built is proportionate to the amount of supporting facilities *Legally Compliant? Don't know *Duty to Cooperate? Don't know *Soundness? No *Soundness Comments? It is not sound because it fails to adapt London's Live/work unit policy yet allows hard working residents to pay for this service and then decline planning applications frankly, the current situation is untrustworthy, deceitful and fraudulent. Is not sound because it is deceitful to resident by failing to have a clear written policy on Live/work units reflecting local R00034/01 peter williams government NPPC policy. Yes *Soundness Improvements? London Borough of Redbridge is effectively in London and therefore should reflect urban policies to much degree. This modification will make the Plan sound and justified and therefore would