notes from LDF meeting yesterday and the proposed process going forward

[Peter Miller]

We have a good meeting yesterday evening. Rona and Mike Havard were
present and Alex was on the end of the internet using a video skype
connection with shared desktop which worked pretty well.

We reviewed the LDF document and our response to the earlier one and
agreed that it formed a useful basis of the response to this version,
but that we should include recommendation for actual changes to the
LDF document:- ie new 'policies' on walking, on cycling and on public
transport and changes to some existing policies and paragraphs. The
thrust of the response will still be that the current LDF is not in
'general conformity with the regional transport strategy'. This
transport strategy is excellent and requires considerable action from
all parties to achieve a shift away from the private car which is
something that the current LDF fails to emphasis.

I spoke to the council this morning and confirmed that we can submit
our response as an electronic document. I suggest that a word (.doc)
document will be easiest for the inspector to deal with who will
hopefully cut and paste from our recommendations into the policy
document!

I am pleased to say that Transition Ipswich are likely to be able to
be a co-signatory of this transport response, which means we will
produce one response for Cycle Ipswich, CTC Suffolk and Transition
Ipswich relating to transport issues.

Transition Ipswich need to agree that position internally and will
also be producing a separate response arounf food security and other
non-transport issues.

I am assuming that Sustrans will again be doing their own thing.


The process from now on is as follows:

I am going to have a go at producing a new draft of the final response
and will post it online.

I will then ask for comments and we will probably have another meeting
to finesse it and deal with these issues.


We then aim to gain endorsement of the group. A brief word about how
we will try to do that, (and we need to tell the inspector how we
determined that this was the view of the organisation).

When it a final document is available we will ask all members to
'endorse it', 'stand aside from it', or 'veto it', or of course just
ignore the whole thing. Standing aside means that you can't agree with
it but don't want to stop it from being submitted.

We hope to get a bunch of endorsements and only a few people 'standing
aside' from it and no 'vetoes'. If we have a lot of people standing
aside it means that there might be something wrong with it and we
should probably do another draft. If we have any 'vetos' at all then
we have to resolve the issue before we can submit it as a document
'from Cycle Ipswich'. If we can't resolve the veto issue then we can
only submit it as from a list of named individuals and not from the
group.

Assuming we don't get any vetos (or can resolve them) then we can say
that it is the 'consensus view of CI). We suggest that this is a much
more inclusive and healthy way of working if we can achieve it as
compared to simple majority voting.

If anyone wants to 'veto' the process or the stance of the current
draft document now then please say so now so we can deal with it asap!!


Regards,



Peter


.

[John Matthissen]

From my experience of Local Plans, at this stage what is needed is
statements addressing specific Policies, either "Support" or
"Object". The Objections should then be followed by proposed
additions or alternatives, consistent in style with the Council
draft. Page 76/77 the bold type CS20 is the policy that needs
changing. There ought to be a clear Transport objective - reduced
carbon emissions through modal shift - in CS1. Mid Suffolk Core
Strategy :

"Core Strategy Objectives SO 3
To provide for sustainable development and respond to the implications
of climate change reducing Mid Suffolk's carbon footprint"
"Core Strategy Objectives SO 13
Support and enable public and community transport services and
encourage walking and cycling initiatives to provide access to jobs,
shops and services and consider new methods of delivering and
protecting
existing services for smaller communities."

.. although I would prefer stronger wording and climate adaptation and
peak oil as well.

There is no harm in including explanations of WHY Cycle Ipswich policy
is better, but it is objections that the Borough might want to
negotiate about, and which are most likely to get you a seat at a
session of the Examination in Public, and a chance to directly
persuade the Inspector. Perhaps. One other general point to make is
that spending on space for cars etc means less for sustainable travel,
whether it is public money or developer contributions. And of course
we should be preparing for a post oil world. Sorry I cannot get more
involved, but there is shed-loads of this stuff to object to here at
Mid Suffolk !

[Peter Miller]

Thank you for the above - I totally agree with you and I am current
redrafting the response to take that form of specific changes for
specific reasons. CS20 is on my list!

I will put a draft up for comment when I have it ready and would very
much welcome your further input.


Many thanks,


Peter

>
>
> On Nov 13, 3:42 pm, Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com> wrote:
>> We have a good meeting yesterday evening. Rona and Mike Havard were
>> present and Alex was on the end of the internet using a video skype
>> connection with shared desktop which worked pretty well.
>>
>

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Cycle Ipswich" group.
> To post to this group, send email to cycle-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cycle-ipswic...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cycle-ipswich?hl=
> .
>
>

[pete]

Peter,

There is a catch. Folks must make a submission before the 24th or 26th
of November 2009. If anyone doesn't make a submission within that time
frame the will not be allowed to address the Inspector when he/she
arrives from Bristol. There is no way over this so it is important
everybody makes a submission now.

pete