Ipswich Rail Chord

Ms J Mourant
"I strongly support the scheme and the ambition to increase the intermodal share of rail over road transported freight."

Gary Chisman on behalf of Highways Agency
"The Highways Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England. We have a duty to safeguard the operation of the SRN as set out in the Department for Transport Circular 02/2007 “Planning and the Strategic Road Network”. The Highways Agency’s interest is the potential impact of the proposed development on the A12 and A14 trunk roads, which are part of the SRN around Ipswich. Network Rail consulted the Highways Agency on the proposal in June 2010 and March 2011. The Highways Agency concluded that the proposal was unlikely to affect the operation of the SRN in this location and accordingly had no comment. That remains the Highways Agency’s position."

Instalcom on behalf of Global Crossing (UK) Telecommunications Ltd
"Global Crossing owns telecommunications cables within the rail boundary of the affected land under wayleave agreements with Network Rail"

Gary Pullan on behalf of Tendring District Council
"This is the response of Tendring District Council as a local planning authority following receipt of a notification letter from Network Rail on 28th July 2011. NO OBJECTION is raised to the proposals. The proposals are of benefit to this district. They are part of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton improvements that when complete will reduce the need for container trains to travel via Stratford (and through this district). Paragraph 3.2.6 of the document refers. Therefore for those residents adjacent to the line there should be a benefit. Although I could find no reference to it in the documents it would appear to free up some additional capacity for passenger services on the line to London. If this is the case then that would also be a benefit to this district."

Anita Seymour on behalf of Suffolk County Council
"Bridge 404. The Council’s concerns regarding design of Bridge 404 remain. The proposals is for a brick clad subway under the bridge side span which the Council considers inappropriate being dark more confined and therefore less inviting to users of the river path. There appears to be no mitigation measures proposed to address crime/fear of crime, or acknowledgement of the importance of this route for pedestrians and cyclists The submission proposes that during the construction of Bridge 404 the river path will be closed for 25 weeks with no diversion alternative provided. Serious consideration should be given to a sensible alternatives ie only closing when absolutely necessary, and a reasonable diversion. Keeping the section between the town and Boss Hall Road (ie under the East Suffolk Line Bridge) is arguably more important than the upstream section due to its heavy. Sproughton Road under bridge – The Council remains concerned over the proposal to install the new ‘Chord’ bridge with the same clearance as the existing. NR have indicated that a reduction in proposed span to 15m would potentially raise the clearance by 300mm. This reduction in span would not negate the provision of enhanced cycle / pedestrian in the future. Abnormal load movements – Abnormal load movements will not be permitted over bridge 75/24 (ESK 403) to the East of the proposed access to the former ‘Harris Meat Factory’ site. Site Access of Hadleigh Road – Not withstanding the proposed temporary traffic signals, requested by IBC as traffic management mitigation at the junction between Hadleigh Road and the proposed access to the former ‘Harris Meat Factory’ site, SCC considers that the risk of road / rail incursions will increase due to the works. This risk should be assessed and any appropriate mitigation measures implemented as part of the project. Landscape The area of land between the Chord and the River Gipping should be included as part of the CPO to offset the adverse landscape and green infrastructure impacts of the development, and for measures to be put forward as part of an environmental compensation package. Given the scale and environmental impact of the development on this important green corridor, the failure to include this area as part of the CPO means that the environmental mitigation and compensation package being offered is not commensurate with the scale of the development and its impact upon the River Gipping green corridor (see also landscape comments below). Network Rail's proposal to deal with landscape details by condition is both inadequate and unacceptable. The general level of planting indicated on the photomontages falls well short of what is required. In particular more planting is needed at the toe of the embankments Travel Plan – Some areas of the travel plan require further information. Of particular concern is how conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and HGV’s would be mitigated and how the impact of construction traffic on local roads and the community would be reduced"

Suzanne Eagle on behalf of Claydon & Whitton Parish Councilk
"IPC Ref: TR040002 Claydon & Whitton Parish Council has no comment to make on the application details but is is concerned at the effect of the inevitable increase of rail traffic at the Great Blakenham railway level crossing. The Parish Council would have expected to have been submitted at the same time, an application to address the major traffic movement issues which are sure to arise from this otherwise welcome work to improve the rail movement of goods to an from Felixstowe Dock. The traffic using the Claydon Industrial Park, which is situated in Great Blakenham, has a single access and egress, which is to the east of the railway level crossing. To the east of this access and egress is no access for HGVs. With this single access point to the Claydon industrial Park and the already heavy queuing, the Parish Council is concerned at the future viability of this valuable employment site. The Claydon & Whitton Parish Council looks forward to this matter being addressed."

David Chappell
"The proposed Ipswich Chord is an essential link for freight trafiic, which is growing at a strong rate, to travel direct to and from the Felixstowe Docks line to and from lines to the Midlands. This will remove the need for freight traffic to travel on the main line to London, which is already overstretched for passenger capacity, thus freeing up passenger capacity options. It will also remove the need for freight train reversal at Ipswich, which will save time, money and give environment improvements in the Upper Yard area. The site of the proposed Chord is currently unoccupied , former industrial land ( "brown field" and so will not impinge upon private housing. This Chord must be built."

nick dibben on behalf of Railfuture East Anglia Branch
"Railfuture is a national voluntary society of some 3000 members of whom 300 form the Railfuture East Anglian Branch. See: www.railfuture.org.uk Railfuture East Anglian branch supports the application by Network Rail to construct an additional line of railway in north Ipswich connecting the East Suffolk railway to the Ipswich to Stowmarket railway. We support the building of this curve for the following reasons: • More capacity for current rail freight away from the congested GEML (and North London Railway; southern end of the West Coast main Line out of London Euston.) • Free up track capacity with more passenger trains with ready for the introduction of Crossrail • Possibility of faster and longer freight trains enabling faster turnrounds after each journey thus using the wagons and locomotives more intensely making railfreight potentially more competitive and thus taking more freight off the overcrowded roads. In particular, we are thinking of the very busy A14 trunk road through Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. • Environmental benefits will see both modal shift from road to rail, and also some relief for communities living close to the A14 route corridor • The Port of Felixstowe latest terminal development Phase 1 has already opened, with Phase 2 due to open by 2018. • The upgraded cross-country rail route will have the capacity to cope with more railfreight as other projected developments are built as for example at Harwich Bathside Bay plus non port railfreight growth. • Make the major passenger railway line from Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford to London Liverpool Street more reliable and improved track speed. • Give the railway the ability to work to its greatest strength... volume and velocity."

anthony tottle
"I am completely in favour of building the Ipswich Chord. It will make movements of freight trains from Felixstowe into the Midlands much easier and hence surely cheaper. Thus it will eventually go a long way towards being self-financing. Please build it a s a p."

James Stewart-Evans on behalf of Health Protection Agency
"The HPA’s comments below are restricted to public health impacts relating to exposure to chemicals and radiation. The HPA notes the applicant’s responses to the recommendations made by the HPA at the Scoping Opinion stage. That HPA response (and IPC Scoping Opinion) requested that the applicant assessed impacts associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF). This does not appear to have been included in the applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES). The application does state that the proposed chord line would not have overhead line electrification (OLE), however there would be a 150m section of the line that would be electrified in the event that a train accidentally diverts on to the chord to ensure the train still has traction to return to the mainline. The IPC should confirm with the applicant that EMF impacts will not be significant. The nature of the proposal (the construction and operation of a new railway chord) is such that its potential to lead to exposure to chemicals is limited. The applicant has considered the storage and use of hazardous materials on-site, emissions to air, contaminated land, hazardous wastes, and contamination of water. The applicant has identified the presence of contaminated land in the development area and the ES identifies mitigation measures and working practices that will be employed in order to prevent adverse impacts. Through the setting and validation of development consent conditions, the IPC should ensure that the development does not lead to adverse impacts associated with contaminated land, liaising as necessary with the Local Authority (contaminated land officer) and the Environment Agency. Based on the information provided in the application, the HPA considers that the North Doncaster Chord proposal is unlikely to lead to significant public health impacts provided that the management plans and mitigation measures identified in the ES and its appendices are implemented during construction and operation of the project."

Nigel Brigham on behalf of Sustrans
"Sustrans objects to the proposals as they stand. Sustrans has a great interest in these proposals as both a land-owner and as a partner in proposals to improve riverside access for walkers, cyclists and the disabled. As the proposals currently stand they have a very negative impact on our land and also do not address adequately the needs of walkers, cyclists and the disabled. Sustrans purchased the land to enable new ramps to be built to allow an improved crossing of the Environment Agency flood wall and so that there was potential for the National Cycle Network to be diverted on to this alignment. The construction of the new chord would make the proposed ramp impossible and could mean that years of hard work to obtain the land have been wasted. We do however accept that it should be possible to construct ramps using a combination of Network Rail land, Environment Agency land and Sustrans land that would be a big improvement on the existing situation although not as good as we had originally envisaged. This area is particularly challenging in terms of access, because of the physical barriers presented by the existing railway and the Environment Agency flood defences. We believe that it should be possible as part of the chord scheme to include new ramps and modifications to the sluice structure that address our concerns as a landowner and also satisfy our charity's aspirations for improved access. We believe that the following should be included as part of the scheme: A concrete wall should be built to satisfy Environment Agency requirements at the same level as the top of the existing wall. This wall will need to be joined to the existing flood defence so that the existing flood wall can be removed in part and flood integrity retained. A ramped cycleway should be built as part of these proposals, with a smooth metalled surface and passing over the concrete wall. We believe that this would be relatively easy as part of the major works proposed, but it would be extremely difficult or impossible once the chord works are completed. We ask that the alignment of the “potential future cycleway” as shown on plans be adjusted slightly and the levels should be completely revised to comply with DDA requirements. In order for this to happen the riverside path will need to be raised up and ramped to pass under the new railway bridge with at least 2.4m clearance i.e. approximately 1m higher than shown on the plans and the cycleway should be at a 1:20 gradient or as close as possible. We ask that the path under the existing railway bridge be raised and ramped to pass under the existing railway bridge with at least 2.4m clearance. We ask that the route be dedicated in such a way as to satisfy the Local Authorities and Sustrans. We ask that Sustrans is compensated for the cost of purchasing the land."

Francis Robert Beaumont
"The published legal notice by Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd contains the following errors which to date they have failed to amend, withdraw or correct - Hard copies of the Order were not available from the IPC as stated Free copies of the Order were not available as stated. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd failed totally or partly to respond to phone calls and emails in regard to the above. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd failed to provide equal opportunies for impaired people."

David Baker on behalf of Peter Colby Commercials Ltd
"We acknowledge the national policy background to this application. We believe that it is the responsibility of the applicant and the IPC to ensure that the scheme minimises conflict with other national and local policies, if approved. Our particular concern relates primarily to the loss of employment land on both a permanent and temporary basis. Our land comprises c19 acres and is zoned by Ipswich Borough Council for employment. There is a covenant with the East of England Development Corporation, undertaking to develop the site for B1, B2 and or B8 uses which has been frustrated since 2008, when Network Rail first raised the prospect of the Ipswich Chord. We accept the need for the permanent land take if the scheme is approved and acknowledge the need for temporary work sites and access to enable it to be built. However the scheme as currently proposed does not, in practice, allow for the remainder of the employment land to be developed at the same time. Network Rail have now acknowledged this (19th August 2011) and are endeavouring to work with us to reach an acceptable solution. This however has not yet been reached and is not contained in the application before you. It needs to be resolved, if necessary, by conditioning any consent. The major issues of concern to be resolved relate to: 1. Highways. The temporary access solution proposed by NRIL from the Hadleigh Road and through our site does not enable contemporaneous development and beneficial occupation of completed buildings. An alternative solution has yet to be agreed between the parties and with the relevant authorities. 2. Ecological Our existing consent relies on the land adjoining the River Gipping to be used for the relocation of protected species, this will now not be available until after the completion of the proposed scheme. An alternative solution has yet to be agreed between the parties and with the relevant authorities. 3. Drainage Our existing scheme relies on an attenuation pond and surface water drainage into the River Gipping, part of which will be lost to the chord itself and the remainder of which will be inaccessible and within the land taken for worksites. An alternative solution has yet to be agreed between the parties and with the relevant authorities. We will continue to work with Network Rail and others to secure workable solutions. We wish to reserve our right to make further written and possibly oral representations, if these and any others matters are not resolved, which preclude concurrent development of the employment land in our ownership"

Fenn Wright on behalf of Omnicorp Ltd
"Fenn Wright are acting on behalf of Omnicorp Limited , the freeholders of the houses known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Omnicorp Limited, wishes to object on the grounds that there is a significant adverse impact upon these houses both by virtue of the permanent land taken and also the temporary land taken in order to undertake the bridge construction works immediately adjacent. Furthermore there will also be a significant adverse impact upon these properties and the quiet enjoyment and living conditions for all the occupiers who rent these properties. The Draft Environmental Statement (EIS) states there will be “very large adverse cumulative affects during construction and operation for the Railway Cottages” (source: Jacobs Environmental Impact Assessment - Environmental Statement dated February 2011). Land Plan Reference 21 shows that the external access/bin stores area and all car parking areas will be needed as a Worksite and access for construction which will severely restrict our client’s tenants from occupying these cottages day to day. The current occupiers have, with the exception of 4 Railway Cottages, been long term occupiers and they could consider vacating depending on the scale and likely disruption; if this happens then re-letting will be completely impossible. The scheme envisages the permanent acquisition of current garden land and essential car parking. There are also areas of potential development land adjacent to 1a and 4 Railway Cottages which will be blighted and effectively lost. These factors all affect the value and attractiveness of these houses; 4 Railway Cottages will be much closer to the operational railway and will suffer from the consequential additional noise, vibration and also loss of privacy. Omnicorp Ltd are also now unable to consider the potential sale of any or all of these properties. Furthermore Omnicorp Ltd is at present unable to consider charging or using these assets for any type of loan or mortgage, as they are severely blighted and effectively un-mortgageable. This will continue for the entire period of the proposed works between September 2012 and February 2014 which our client and their individual tenants feel is entirely unacceptable."

Fenn Wright on behalf of Global Self Drive
"We are submitting these representations on behalf of Global Self Drive who are the freeholder owner occupier of the car hire business between Railway Cottages and Morrisons Petrol Station. Our clients have now had an opportunity of considering the draft documents which form part of the Development Consent Order and they wish to formally object under Section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 as the scheme proposes the permanent acquisition of land to the rear (Land Plan Reference 23) of Global Self Drive Limited which is currently used for essential hardstanding/parking of vans, cars and commercial vehicles to enable the efficient operation of this business. It appears from Land Plan Reference 24 that the main access and entire rear yard /car/van parking areas will also be needed as a Worksite and access for construction which will severely restrict our client’s ability to continue this entire operation and business. The combined areas of land/yard are essential for the continued operation of our client’s business. In view of the likely impact of the permanent and temporary loss of these areas of land/yard our client considers the overall site will effectively be rendered unviable as there will be insufficient access/hardstanding/car parking available."

Mrs Lisa Chandler on behalf of Ipswich Borough Council
"I will be making a representation on behalf of the Planning & Development Committee of Ipswich Borough Council. This representation will be made following consultation with the Borough's Greenways officer, highway engineers and the planning department. The representation will support the principle of the Ipswich Chord but will raise some outstanding concerns that have not been addressed since we last made comment."

Julie Cocks on behalf of Flagship
"Flagship owns part of the land affected by this Order and has tenants living at   . We have no objections to the proposed works. We do however expect Network Rail to keep our residents informed of works well in advance, provide them with details of duration, level of noise, timings etc on an on-going basis."

Michael Christopher Meadows on behalf of Natural England
"Thank you for your consultation dated 28th July 2011, which we received on 29th July 2011. This response represents our consultation response under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Regulation 61(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2010 (The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010). Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We have considered the proposal against the full range of Natural England’s interests in the natural environment. Based on the information provided, Natural England has no objection to the proposed development subject to the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application. The reasons for this view are set out below. Natural England’s Position on Transport and the natural environment: We believe that further expansion of our current transport network will inevitably damage our natural environment through land-take, habitat loss and severance, and the impacts caused by traffic. We need to move towards an environmentally sustainable transport system that can operate without causing further damage to the natural environment and within local and global environmental limits. Therefore, we are supportive of proposals that improve the environmental sustainability of freight transport. Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA): As stated in our letter of 19 May 2011, we agree with the findings of the Report as to Effects on European Sites (7th June 2011 Rev 2.0, Document Reference 3.6) that the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area/Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, providing that measures are in place to prevent a water pollution incident reaching the international site. We note that a Pollution Incident Control Plan is a mandatory requirement and that this will take particular note of the risk of polluting the River Gipping which flows into the Orwell Estuary. Protected Species: Natural England has produced Standing Advice for Local Authorities (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/east_of_england/ourwork/standingadvice/default.aspx) on protected species, and we recommend consultation with that Advice. We note that a desk study, and protected species surveys have been conducted in support of this application. We are satisfied with the scope and methodology of these surveys, and that sufficient information already exists on the distribution of reptile species across the application site. With respect to European Protected Species, we are satisfied that there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the populations of bat species identified with the mitigation measures outlined in Tables 1-J and 1-K of the Ecology Technical Report (replacement roost opportunities, and controls on lighting), and that there is also unlikely to be an adverse impact on otters using the riparian habitat of the River Gipping with the measures set out in the above Tables, specifically the design of the bridges to incorporate a gap between the abutment and the river bank. Further advice on bridge design and otters can be found in Nature Conservation and Roads: advice in relation to otters (2001), by A Grogan, C Philcox and D Macdonald (http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol10/section4/ha8199.pdf). We are broadly satisfied with the mitigation measures outlined for nationally protected species. We note that during the construction phase, this will consist of a mix of habitat manipulation, and physical translocation of reptiles to a receptor site to avoid harm to these species. We suggest that it would have been helpful to have provided a plan showing the proposed areas of habitat enhancement. We recognise that Network Rail have identified a suitable receptor site (Bramford Meadows Local Nature Reserve), and that on-site enhancement of habitat would also occur. We would urge the Infrastructure Planning Commission to note that public bodies have many and varied responsibilities and duties on biodiversity matters, including as owners of land designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (i.e. as section 28G bodies), and in respect of European protected species and habitats. Under section 40(1) of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 a duty is placed on public authorities, including local planning authorities, to have regard to biodiversity in exercising their functions. Please note that if planning permission is granted, the applicants should be informed that this does not absolve them from complying with the relevant law protecting species, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required, as described in Part IV B of Circular 06/2005. If the application is amended with additional information, Natural England should be re-consulted for a further 21 days. Please forward a copy of the decision notice to us at the above address."

Paul Freer on behalf of National Health Service Blood & Transplant
"NHSBT occupies land and buildings at the southern end of Boss Hall Road, Ipswich, as a Blood Collection Team Base (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX). As the name implies, a Blood Collection Team Base (BCTB) is used as a base from which a mobile Blood Collection Team co-ordinates and operates collections of blood from donors in the surrounding area. The blood collected is taken to a Blood Collection Centre for processing, and is therefore not stored at the property. However, the vehicles must return to the property at the end of each day to safely dispose of the various consumables used in the blood collection process. The vehicles are parked at the property overnight, and are loaded with the various consumables required at the start of each day. A blood mobile is also based at the property Although NHSBT have no objections in relation to the completed scheme for the Ipswich Chord, NHSBT have objected in writing to this proposal at the preceding consultation stages on grounds relating to the construction process: specifically vehicular access, noise disturbance, fugitive dust and car parking. Of these, the biggest single issue for NHSBT is the loss of car parking. The loss of parking for staff cars and for liveried vehicles would be a major problem for the operation of the unit in Boss Hall Road, not least because this parking area would not be available to NHSBT for the whole of the 90 week construction period. The operation carried out by NHSBT at the unit is Boss Hall Road is entirely dependant upon the vehicles used by the mobile Blood Collection Team having unobstructed access to the site. A major part of this requirement is for adequate car parking in close proximity to the unit. There is also the need for the vehicles to be securely stored overnight. The use of the existing car parking area immediately adjoining the NHSBT unit as a constructors compound throughout the duration of works would leave an extremely limited residual car parking provision, wholly insufficient to meet the daily operational requirements of NHSBT. It is therefore essential to the NHSBT that adequate alternative car parking provision is guaranteed for the whole of the period during which the existing parking is lost. No such provision is indicated in the consultation documents. NHSBT therefore objects to the proposal on the grounds of loss of car parking essential to the operation of the unit at Boss Hall Road and will maintain that objection until such time as adequate alternative provision is guaranteed for the whole of the period during which the existing provision is not available. NHSBT would be willing to consider the provision by Network Rail of alternative car parking for the duration of the construction works. However, until such time as the precise location of any alternative car parking is known, NHSBT are unable to take a view on the potential acceptability of that alternative."

Richard Guyatt on behalf of Freightliner Limited
"Dear Sirs Proposal by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Ipswich Chord) Order IPC Reference: TRO40002 Representations by Freightliner Limited We are instructed by Freightliner Limited and its associated companies (Freightliner) to make representations in relation to the proposed Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Ipswich Chord) Order. Freightliner Limited is a freight operating company licensed to operate freight trains on the National Rail Network within the UK. It is a market leader in transportation of maritime containers by rail and offers a comprehensive network from principally five deep sea ports, including Felixstowe. It operates 100 daily services of up to 75 containers and has a fleet of over 80 locomotives, state of the art handling equipment and a fleet of road vehicles. Its terminals handle 65% of all rail borne container units moved in the UK. The rail network in the vicinity of Ipswich is of paramount importance to Freightliner, given that over 20 of its daily rail movements use the railway infrastructure at Ipswich, with services originating from or destined for the Port of Felixstowe. Freightliner’s interests in the vicinity of the Order Lands Freightliner views Ipswich as a key location for its business. Any changes to the rail infrastructure in this area are of prime importance to it. It also owns a leasehold interest in sidings in the area known as Ipswich Top Yard, lying to the south of the junction of the Great Eastern main line and East Suffolk line. The sidings that it holds, together with the adjacent network sidings, are used by Freightliner for recessing of trains awaiting paths either down the Felixstowe branch line or on the Great Eastern main line. Background to the proposed changes to the Network at Ipswich The operation of Ipswich Top Yard and the operational effects of the Ipswich Chord on it, in particular for trains that have to reverse at Ipswich, are described in paragraph 8.5 of the Planning Statement submitted by the applicant (document reference 3.9). The Planning Statement does not make reference to an existing Transport and Works Order – the Felixstowe Branch Line and Ipswich Yard Improvement Order 2008 which authorises, amongst other works, works to the Ipswich Top Yard area. This Order requires land held by Freightliner and was the subject of extensive negotiations between Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company (FDRC) and Freightliner, together with DB Schenker prior to the making of that Transport and Works Order. Freightliner is aware that FDRC are seeking to extend the time period for implementation of compulsory purchase acquisition powers under that Order to carry out its scheme (FDRC scheme). This is currently the subject of pre-application consultation by FDRC. Freightliner has been seeking clarification from both FDRC and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited for some time regarding the impact of the Ipswich Chord Order on FDRC’s scheme. Despite various enquiries by Freightliner, no information has been forthcoming from either party to whether both schemes will be implemented. Freightliner requires this clarification so it can properly plan for its business and the impacts of works to the railway network in the vicinity of Ipswich. Freightliner Limited’s views on the Ipswich Chord scheme Freightliner does not believe that both the Ipswich Chord scheme and the FDRC scheme are required and believes that if both schemes are developed there will be a degree of redundancy in one of those schemes (thereby impacting on the compelling need in public interest for compulsory acquisition powers for either the Network Rail scheme or the extension of powers for FDRC’s scheme). The disruption caused by carrying out both schemes might also be excessive and unnecessary. Freightliner believes that only one scheme should be taken forward. Freightliner therefore needs clarification on the following: 1. The operational impacts of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited’s scheme on Freightliner’s operations. 2. Whether it is intended that Network Rail Infrastructure Limited will take the Ipswich Chord scheme forward if Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Limited will also take the FDRC scheme forward. 3. The timetable for Network Rail’s scheme and how this interrelates with the timetable for FDRC’s scheme. 4. Clarification as to whether implementation of both schemes have been discussed by Network Rail with FDRC. 5. Clarification that, if the Ipswich Chord scheme is to progress, then Network Rail Infrastructure Limited will no longer support FDRC in taking forward the FDRC scheme. 6. Open dialogue with Freightliner, Network Rail and FDRC to ascertain the preferred scheme for each of the parties and to work together on a timetable for implementation of that preferred scheme is required. Freightliner is ready to engage in such dialogue. Conclusions As a result of the potential impact of the Ipswich Chord scheme on Freightliner’s operations, Freightliner would ask to be kept fully informed on progress during the consideration of the proposed Order by the examining authority. At this stage we would request that we be allocated time at the preliminary meeting to make representations as to progress and to be involved in the preparation of further timetables for the submission of representations to the examining authority. A copy of this representation has been sent to those representing Network Rail Infrastructure Limited. A copy will also be supplied to the Solicitors for FDRC. Yours faithfully Bond Pearce LLP"

Bob Chamberlain on behalf of Suffolk Coastal District Council
"Suffolk Coastal District Council wishes to support in principle the Ipswich Cord Project. The improvement in freight handling and journey times from the Port of Felixstowe to the Midlands will help boost economic activity in the Haven Gateway Growth Area and assist in modal shift from road to rail. The overall upgrades to the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail line are seen to be key to the further development of Felixstowe Port and associated port businesses. The Council does not wish to comment on the details of the scheme which are located in the administrative area of other local planning authorities."

Emmanuel Pitman on behalf of Nicoll and Smith
"The site has been granted detailed planning permission for a number of uses. The acquisition of plots 6-9 will prevent the development of this important site which will make a significant contribution to the commercial activity and housing supply of the area. Plots 6 and 8 - The land take is not necessary to enable construction and operation of the development and Network Rail can still carry out the necessary works with much smaller land take. Plots 7 and 9 - The temporary acquisition of this land is not necessary. Other larger plots of land in the vicinity can be used as an alternative (for example the former British Sugar factory land). We reserve the right to withdraw, amend or add to the above representations at a later date."

Andrew McGregor Hunter on behalf of Environment Agency
"Following a review of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and accompanying Environmental Statement (ES) we have given below a summary of the main issues falling within our remit. Impacts on Environment Agency Flood Defence Structures The proposed installation of the new railway line and bridge over the River Gipping will affect both our flood risk management operations for removing and installing the Norwich Railway Line Sluice as well as compromise our ability to ensure access to land adjacent to the River Gipping for the maintenance of our flood defences. The cost of complying with operating restrictions imposed by Network Rail when working adjacent to the rail network will need to be looked into and agreed. This may include the cost to power down on electrified rail networks and/or labour for watchmen. There may also be additional costs associated with the replacement of the existing sluice superstructure, sheet piling and river bed protection in the areas under the new bridge and between the two bridges. We have no objection to the overall scheme in principle as long as all future costs that would be incurred by us resulting from the scheme, including additional costs for health and safety reasons when Environment Agency staff are carrying out maintenance on our flood defence works, are agreed prior to the scheme commencing and our being satisfied we can secure the necessary access to our flood defences. Currently our legal team is considering the draft DCO along with the protective provisions annexed to the DCO and will be taking this matter forward with the applicant’s legal advisors. Flood Risk The alignment of the proposed scheme falls mainly in Flood Zone 1, but crosses Flood Zones 2 and 3 at two points along the River Gipping. Although no concerns on flood risk, the proposed scheme should incorporate the mitigation measures detailed in section 7.2.5 in volume 3 binder 1 of the ES. The proposed drainage strategy for surface water run-off, which is acceptable to us, should accord with the approved Flood Risk Assessment. Land Contamination Issues From the site investigation undertaken it has been found that potential risks to the Principal Chalk Aquifer are associated with the presence contamination by hydrocarbons (TPH/BTEX) and MTBE. In that regard, we therefore agree with the recommendation for additional investigation of both the vertical and lateral extent of any such contamination from which the finalised remedial strategy should be refined. We also accept the proposed use of non-displacement piling using continuous flight augers following removal/remediation of the hydrocarbon contaminated soils. To ensure the site is subject to the required additional investigation, assessment and remediation as may be necessary for the protection of controlled waters, the DCO should incorporate the additional investigative work comprising, among others, - a preliminary risk assessment; a site investigation scheme; - an options appraisal and remediation strategy based on the results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment giving full details of the remediation measures required; - a verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met, reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action; - if, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval for a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with; - for development involving piling or other penetrative ground improvement methods on a site potentially affected by contamination a suitable Foundation Works Risk Assessment based on the results of the site investigation and any remediation, should be undertaken, which should indicate any mitigation measures employed, to ensure the process does not cause, or create preferential pathways for, the movement of contamination into the underlying aquifer, or impacting surface water quality. Water Abstraction/Impoundment Licences We are not clear on the proposal to disapply the requirements for abstraction and impoundment licences and require clarification from the applicant on this aspect. Andrew Hunter Planning Liaison Officer Our Ref: AE/2011/113155"

Sacha Hollis on behalf of Eastern Power Networks plc
"Eastern Power Networks plc (“the Company”) is the successor in title to the electricity distribution business carried on by Eastern Electricity plc and its predecessor the Eastern Electricity Board. The Company is a statutory undertaker. The Company is the owner and/or occupier of premises in the land to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order. It is also entitled to the benefit of rights in, over, on or under such land and is the owner of Electric Lines and/or Electrical Plant (as those terms are defined in Section 64(1) of the Electricity Act 1989) in, on, over or under the land to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order. These premises, rights and apparatus have been acquired for and are used for the purposes of its statutory undertaking. The Company has apparatus placed within the land subject to the above Order. Such apparatus includes high voltage and low voltage electric lines and network distribution substations. The Protective Provisions in Schedule G of the proposed Order address the majority of the Company’s concerns. However the Company wishes to draw particular attention to the 132kV overhead electric lines which cross the railway south of the River Gipping and the tower supporting these lines located to the north-east of the railway. The Company is not aware whether the works proposed under the Order can take place without requiring the removal of the overhead 132kV electric lines and the support tower. If the works can take place under the overhead lines then Network Rail must comply with Health and Safety Executive Guidance note GS6 "Avoidance of danger from overhead electric power lines" and apply the guidance information contained in that document. If Network Rail cannot carry out the works under these electric lines and requires the removal of these lines then this would have a significant impact on the ability of the Company to operate its distribution network. The Company understands that in order to relocate the 132kV electric lines a development consent would be required from the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The Company requests the Infrastructure Planning Commission to take these matters into account when making a decision on the application for the proposed Order."

Howard Bassford on behalf of Hutchison Ports (UK) Limited
"OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (IPSWICH CHORD) ORDER IPC REFERENCE TR040002 1. Hutchison Ports (UK) Limited (HPUK) generally supports the principle of the Ipswich Chord proposals ("Proposals") by Network Rail (Applicant). However, HPUK formally OBJECTS to this application on the grounds that its undertaking is adversely affected by the Proposals. Further, there are a number of areas where it would be unsafe to determine the application without further information. 2. The Proposals will impact significantly on the operational interests of HPUK unless protective provisions are applied. 3. The owner and operator of the Port of Felixstowe (Port), the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company (FDRC) is the wholly owned subsidiary of HPUK. The Port currently handles 28 intermodal trains per day (Monday to Friday). The Port is the UK's largest container port and the single largest generator of intermodal freight on the UK railway system. The Applicant's application confirms that there will be line closures affecting the network in the vicinity of and affecting the Port. Doubtless there will also be other perturbations. Because of the importance of the freight route to and from the Port, HPUK seeks protection for HPUK's operations and the services that relate to the Port. 4. HPUK is carrying out a major redevelopment at the Port, known as the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (FSR). Phase 1 of FSR is now being commissioned. In order to deliver Phase 2 of FSR, works authorised by the Order are required to be carried out at Ipswich marshalling yard pursuant to a section 106 agreement dated 25 November 2004. These works were required because freight trains using the branch line have no alternative but to use the marshalling yard at Ipswich as there is no direct route between the East Suffolk Line and the down direction of the Great Eastern Main Line and relate to capacity required for such activity. 5. The Applicant's proposals would create such a direct route between the East Suffolk Line and the Great Eastern Main Line. HPUK must have certainty whether works authorised by the Order are required, and consequently whether the delivery of Phase 2 of FSR should relate to FDRC's own works or the Proposals. The potential impact of other planned railway improvement works should also be considered. Further clarification should therefore be provided to confirm what other works are planned and about the potential impact of the Applicant's proposals and other planned railway improvement works on HPUK's already approved proposals. 6. FDRC is about to make an application to renew its powers of compulsory acquisition granted under the Felixstowe Branch Line and Ipswich Yard Improvement Order 2008 (S.I. 2008 No.2512) (Order). To do so, FDRC must show a compelling case in the public interest. If there is no need for the works at the Ipswich marshalling yard, consequently, a compelling case in the public interest cannot be made out. The capacity consequences of the Applicant's proposals must be examined and, in particular, their impact on the need for the Ipswich marshalling yard works. If the need remains for the works a compelling case in the public interest can be made out justifying interference with the rights of third parties. 7. FDRC is also a statutory undertaker with powers to construct improvements to the Felixstowe Branch Line and the Ipswich marshalling yard pursuant to the Order. There are certain parcels of land included in the Order and within the Applicant's proposal that overlap. Should both schemes fall be delivered concurrently protection must also be in place to ensure that FDRC's works can be carried out, and generally to ensure minimum disruption to rail traffic/cumulative noise impacts etc.. In addition, it must be ensured that the Applicant's proposals do not preclude FDRC from complying with its obligations under the Order. 8. HPUK will be seeking protection and in particular, HPUK will wish to agree protection for its undertaking during the course of the construction works and otherwise to protect its undertaking and interests. HPUK considers that this protection must be contained in protective provisions to be included in any Development Consent Order when made and that, in addition, separate agreements with the Applicant will deal with other specific issues. 9. HPUK reserves the right to produce additional and further grounds of objection when further details of the application and its effect on the interests of HPUK are available."

Natalie Blaken on behalf of East of England Development Agency
"In assessing the proposal, a key issue is the consideration of how the improvements support the economy beyond the local issues detailed in the Environment Statement submitted with the application. EEDA provided advice to the IPC in August 2010 on this matter in our response on the scoping of the Environment Assessment. In particular, the port’s competitiveness in the national and regional interest including further rail specific economic impacts, carbon reduction impacts and employment impacts should be considered. The Port of Felixstowe is the largest container port in the UK, handling over 3 million TEUs and having about 40% of the UK container market – the port’s success is a national concern as well as local. In order to cope with the extra demand for rail freight to and from the port, the cross country rail route between Felixstowe and Nuneaton must be upgraded, both by gauge enhancement and capacity increase. This would unlock more paths on the rail network and reduce congestion on the road network. EEDA has identified the upgrading of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail route as a key transport priority for the East of England to support sustainable freight movements, and has undertaken the following actions in support of the route’s development: • EEDA supported the Peterborough to Nuneaton gauge enhancement scheme in the East of England’s 2006 initial advice to Government on the region’s priorities for funding from the Department for Transport’s ‘Transport Innovation Fund’ • EEDA led a 3-way RDA contribution of £1m to Network Rail for the completion of the work required to advance the Peterborough to Nuneaton gauge scheme to GRIP 4. • EEDA Chair (at the time), Richard Ellis, visited Brussels in summer 2009 to meet the EC commissioner and lobby for the scheme to receive TEN-T funding. In response to an informal consultation conducted by Network Rail EEDA supported the development and twin-tracking of the Ipswich Bacon Factory Curve as our preferred option, as this scheme was able to demonstrate it would secure most economic return amongst the five options considered. EEDA therefore supports Network Rail’s objective to proceed quickly with development work on the Ipswich Bacon Factory Curve twin-tracking rail scheme, as part of the overall Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail corridor enhancements. EEDA has a land interest in the form of a charge on the part of the site known as the Harris Business Park, off Hadleigh Road, Ipswich. In disposing of this site in 2008, EEDA protected the route and allowed the sympathetic development of the remainder of the site. The business park, formerly the home of the Harris bacon factory, is Ipswich's largest remaining undeveloped industrial site. In time it is set to provide 300,000sq ft of work related buildings for industrial, warehousing, commercial and manufacturing use. EEDA is due to be abolished by March 2012 and this interest is being transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency on 19th September 2011."

Howard Bassford on behalf of Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company
"OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (IPSWICH CHORD) ORDER IPC REFERENCE TR040002 1. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company (FDRC) generally supports the principle of the Ipswich Chord proposals ("Proposals") by Network Rail (Applicant). However, FDRC formally OBJECTS to this application on the grounds that its undertaking is adversely affected by the Proposals. Further there are a number of areas where it would be unsafe to determine the application without further information. 2. The Proposals will impact significantly on the operational interests of FDRC unless protective provisions are applied. 3. FDRC is the owner and operator of the Port of Felixstowe (Port). The Port currently handles 28 intermodal trains per day (Monday to Friday). The Port is the UK's largest container port and the single largest generator of intermodal freight on the UK railway system. The Applicant's application confirms that there will be line closures affecting the network in the vicinity of and affecting the Port. Doubtless there will also be other perturbations. Because of the importance of the freight route to and from the Port, FDRC seeks protection for FDRC's operations and the services that relate to the Port. 4. FDRC is the wholly owned subsidiary of Hutchison Ports UK Limited (HPUK). HPUK is carrying out a major redevelopment at the Port, known as the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (FSR). Phase 1 of FSR is now being commissioned. In order to deliver Phase 2 of FSR, works authorised by the Felixstowe Branch Line and Ipswich Yard Improvement Order 2008 (S.I. 2008 No.2512) (Order) are required to be carried out at Ipswich marshalling yard pursuant to a section 106 agreement dated 25 November 2004. These works were required because freight trains using the branch line have no alternative but to use the marshalling yard at Ipswich as there is no direct route between the East Suffolk Line and the down direction of the Great Eastern Main Line and relate to capacity required for such activity. 5. The Applicant's proposals would create such a direct route between the East Suffolk Line and the Great Eastern Main Line. FDRC must have certainty whether works authorised by the Order are required, and consequently whether the delivery of Phase 2 of FSR should relate to FDRC's own works or the Proposals. The potential impact of other planned railway improvement works should also be considered. Further clarification should therefore be provided to confirm what other works are planned and about the potential impact of the Applicant's proposals and other planned railway improvement works on HPUK's and FDRC's already approved proposals. 6. FDRC is about to make an application to renew its powers of compulsory acquisition granted under the Order. To do so, FDRC must show a compelling case in the public interest. If there is no need for the works at the Ipswich marshalling yard, consequently, a compelling case in the public interest cannot be made out. The capacity consequences of the Applicant's proposals must be examined and, in particular, their impact on the need for the Ipswich marshalling yard works. If the need remains for the works a compelling case in the public interest can be made out justifying interference with the rights of third parties. 7. FDRC is also a statutory undertaker with powers to construct improvements to the Felixstowe Branch Line and the Ipswich marshalling yard pursuant to the Order. There are certain parcels of land included in the Order and within the Applicant's proposal that overlap. Should both schemes fall be delivered concurrently protection must also be in place to ensure that FDRC's works can be carried out, and generally to ensure minimum disruption to rail traffic/cumulative noise impacts etc.. In addition, it must be ensured that the Applicant's proposals do not preclude FDRC from complying with its obligations under the Order. 8. FDRC will be seeking protection and in particular, FDRC will wish to agree protection for its undertaking during the course of the construction works and otherwise to protect its undertaking and interests. FDRC considers that this protection must be contained in protective provisions to be included in any Development Consent Order when made and that, in addition, separate agreements with the Applicant will deal with other specific issues. 9. FDRC reserves the right to produce additional and further grounds of objection when further details of the application and its effect on the interests of FDRC are available."

Mr Matthew Clarke on behalf of East of England Co-operative Society
"The East of England Co-operative Society is writing to formally object to the proposed scheme. The Society recognises the strategic need for the rail network improvements proposed. However, due to the adverse impacts on the Boss Hall Estate and the implications to tenants, the Society is apprehensive about the proposed scheme. The Society remains concerned the discussions with Network Rail about the proposals have been continually changing. It is felt the Ipswich Chord does not accurately reflect what is actually being proposed, and does not satisfactorily address the impacts it will have on the Society, their tenants, and their Estate. In general, the Society remains disturbed by the uncertainty regarding timeframes and the details of the proposed works involved. The Society has raised these issues at previous rounds of consultation, which are re-stated below. Boss Hall Business Park was constructed by the East of England Co-operative Society approximately 20 years ago. It comprises 46 business units, the majority of which are let to small businesses who employ local people in a broad section of commerce. The Estate also accommodates the Society’s Building Services Department and importantly the 140,000 sq.ft. Distribution Warehouse which services both this and other Co-operatives. Demand for investment units within the estate has remained strong, and there is very little void space. This is due to the close proximity to A12/A14, the well managed estate, and the excellent relationship the Society has established with its tenants. The proposed ‘permanent and temporary acquisitions’ will have a direct adverse impact on the Society and some of the tenants, and will result in the loss of employment land. Furthermore, the proposals are likely to sterilise some of the units and make them extremely difficult to re-let. Several other units will also be affected by the loss of land either to their access or yards. Finally, the loss of communal car parking facilities will have wider implications for the Society and its tenants, with car parking already in short supply on the Estate. There remain serious concerns in relation to the existing site infrastructure and services that will be affected by the proposals, and the knock-on effects this will cause. This includes the fact that the majority of works will be undertaken during normal working hours, and the anticipated volumes of construction traffic that will be involved. The closure of Sproughton Road at various periods of the construction will directly and significantly impact the Society’s ability to operate its 24-hour Distribution Centre. It is therefore apparent there will be considerable disruption to both the trading operation of the Society and its tenants which, have not been satisfactorily addressed by Network Rail. The Environmental Impact Assessment summary indicates that the proposed works and associated construction traffic will only have a “minimal impact”. The Society remains unconvinced by the evidence supporting the application and would add that the EIA deals only with the public highways and not the roads within the Estate where the majority of the disruption will be caused. Therefore, the Society considers the assessment is fundamentally flawed. The uncertainty created by the Network Rail proposal has already impacted on the Society’s ability to negotiate with new tenants, who are aware of the disruption that would be caused. The Society has sought greater clarity on the timeframes and detailed work schedule involved. The Society requests the issues raised in this objection to be fully and properly addressed."

Carole
"Ipswich Chord I completed a detailed submission on-line before the consultation deadline but although I pressed ‘submit’ my form did not arrive at its destination, although I believed it had. After receiving no confirmation, however, I checked with the Inspectorate, and found my submission had never arrived. I hope you will consider my comments nonetheless. I have made them at other consultation events but only briefly. I write concerning the bridge near Riverside Road, Ipswich. The land on the Riverside Road side of the bridge is in the ward I represent. I have two points to make. Firstly, the need for a sturdy palisade fence to run along the extent of Network Rail-owned land, from the river path to Bramford Road. • This is essential for safety reasons. Houses, including a sizeable new development with many families, border the Network Rail land, and a substantial barrier is needed to prevent children from climbing onto the railway embankment. Currently there is no barrier at all; the embankment is an inviting jungle of bushes and trees in an area otherwise short of open space. Network Rail has already recognised the need for this safety barrier by erecting a metal palisade fence between Edward Close (just along from Bramford Road.) I hope very much this section can be constructed as part of the project. Secondly, the proposal to build an access ramp on the Riverside Road side of the bridge. • This is an enormous earth ramp which would provide access to the railway line. It is very near a small development of relatively new houses at the end of Riverside Road. This development (run by a housing association) houses a mixture of families, disabled people living in specially adapted houses, and a group home for people with mental health problems run by the Richmond Fellowship and MIND. Since the development was built residents have experienced noise problems from the factory across the river. The Network Rail work, noisy and intensive over a protracted period, with the ramp extremely close to a group of flats, would be very difficult to live with. • The open ground between the houses and the river path will be partly obliterated by the construction of the ramp. This is an area with very little open space – apart from the river. The river path itself is well-used, for access and pleasure. However, the open ground is cared for by a group of local people called Wild About Westgate. I started it up in conjunction with the Greenlight Trust and selected this part of the ward precisely because it so desperately needs ‘greening’. We have worked for three years, planting, working with the local schools, and running bug-hunts and other events. The ramp would wreck a third of the green area, which has a range of plants and is home to uncommon species. • However, on the other side of the bridge is the Boss Hall industrial estate. I would strongly contend that this site is preferable. Access, via the Sproughton Road/A14, is easier; the industrial estate tolerates heavy vehicles as part of its daily routine; there are no residents whose lives will be made a misery while work continues. There are some small industrial units adjacent to the bridge, but negotiating an arrangement with regards to these should be less traumatic than submitting residents to months of noise and disturbance. I would urge that should the ramp be built, Network Rail compensates local residents for the serious disruption to their lives over a protracted period. Many thanks. Carole Jones Westgate ward councillor Ipswich Borough Council"

Simon on behalf of Ceramic Tiles Limited
"Dear Sirs, I refer to my telephone conversation with Jolyon concerning making a late representation in respect to Network Rails' proposed Ipswich Chord Order. I act on behalf of Ceramic Tiles Limited who occupy 46 Boss Hall Business Park. The Company has some 40 employees with an annual turnover of approximately £4,500,000. They service 5 depots across Suffolk together with a wide distribution network. The proposed Order will result in the demolition of the property and potentially the loss of the business itself with the consequential impact on local employment. I was appointed to act on behalf of Ceramic Tiles Limited in late September 2011 and after the date for representations to the IPC being the 1st September 2011. My client wishes to make a late representation to the IPC in respect to the proposed Ipswich Chord Order. My client mistakenly believed that the application to the IPC related to the planning application and not the compulsory purchase of their premises. As the Development Consent Order procedure is relatively new then this is in my opinion an understandable misjudgment. Prior to the introduction of the Development Consent Order process almost every compulsory purchase order would have a separate objection process to the planning application. This confusion was also partly a result of poor communication from Network Rail. In only one paragraph of one letter (28th July 2011) did Network Rail mention that the Development Consent Order included a compulsory purchase of land interests. The reason that my client believes that a late representation should be permitted is that the proposed compulsory acquisition will affect his business more than any other party. He considers that his representation should be heard due to the potential adverse impact on local employment, the environment and his property interests. It is also considered that to deny the right of a late representation would be a breach of the Human Rights Convention (Article 1 of the First Protocol). It is accepted by Network Rail that the proposed 'has the potential to infringe human rights' and it is my client's human rights which are particularly affected by the proposal. My client needs the right to explain in full to the IPC why the proposed DCO for Ipswich Chord Order should be either rejected or amended to reduce its impact on local employment and the environment. My client would be in a position to make their representation in a very short period of time so as to not to delay the process."