Object

Representation ID: 328

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mary Donovan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is considered that the plan misinterprets the NPPF by not setting targets for brownfield development and focussing development on previously developed land first. The inference is that the NPPF does not support brownfield development over greenfield although it says Council should encourage effective use of land by reusing previously developed land.

Object

Representation ID: 348

Received: 11/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Mary Ames

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Brownfield development targets need to be reinstated
Development of brownfield sites needs priority over the Northern Fringe
The whole Northern Fringe should not be allocated now as this will have a negative impact on regenerating brownfield sites including the waterfront.

Support

Representation ID: 478

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: EDF Energy Plc

Agent: EDF Energy Plc

The priority should be to build on previously developed land in line with the NPPF

Object

Representation ID: 589

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Rowell Bell

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Acknowledgement should be given to the potential for housing land is in the town centre such as flats in the Great White Horse, former Co-op in Carr St, County Hall and the Civic Centre site.

Object

Representation ID: 601

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We do not consider that policy CS9 performs a meaningful function. It should be deleted.

Support

Representation ID: 725

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Crest welcomes the strategy that, whilst the Council will focus development on previously developed land, it recognises that greenfield land will need to be developed to meet its objectively assessed housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 743

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Ian and Helen MacNaughton

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We urge the Council to focus first on brownfield development in Ipswich rather than on greenfield sites like the Northern Fringe. Focusing on brownfield will help to regenerate the town centre and waterfront. If there is to be a Northern Fringe development at all, then all the land should not be allocated now as this will deter urgently needed brownfield development. We recognise that brownfield development poses more issues for developers and thus is potentially less profitable and attractive for them so the Council's approach needs to address this issue.

Object

Representation ID: 852

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to removal of the PDL target. Allowing multi-site development across the entire Northern Fringe and removing the PDL target will result in new homes built on greenfield land at the Northern Fringe as it will be cheaper and easier for developers to do so compared with brownfield land. This will limit the regeneration of the town, especially the town centre, which is undesirable. We suggest a target/a small number of time dependent targets for PDL reinstated to ensure regeneration sites are prioritised over greenfield sites. We fail to see how the current Policy will "focus development on PDL first".

Object

Representation ID: 888

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Notwithstanding the comments on brownfield being clearer in the vision and objectives, and given the emphasis on housing delivery and the significance of the five-year-land-supply, the amendments made to this policy are understandable.

Object

Representation ID: 898

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr David Parker

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 912

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr D Cook

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 920

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr John D Jordan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 927

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Janet Johnson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 934

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Mary Ames

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 941

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Alexander McDonald

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 948

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Rowell Bell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 955

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Bernard Jasper

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 962

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Nigel Grant

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 969

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr D E Heckels

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 976

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Graham H Mitchell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 983

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr C Watson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 990

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Leslie Palmer

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 997

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Michael Pert

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 1004

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Jaimie Greig

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 1011

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Peter Stonebridge

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 1018

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Derek Rose

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 1025

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr I Coleman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 1032

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Stephen Traynor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 1039

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Miss Hannah Devine

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 1046

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Susan Arbuthnot

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The target for brownfield site development has been removed. We feel this should be reinstated and priority given to regenerating these sites over developing the Northern Fringe greenfield site.