6.17
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
Representation ID: 123
Received: 06/03/2014
Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd
Agent: Mersea Homes Limited
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The document only sets out its strategy for future development in part. Through reliance on windfall sites and deferring decisions about growth later in the Plan period, it only shows locations for just over 50% of the 10,500 homes needed to 2031. Although the Plan period is extended and the housing requirement increased, the strategy has not changed from the adopted Core Strategy. The Review fails to identify specific deliverable sites or broad locations for the full housing requirement, and fails the tests of Soundness.
Please see attached.
Support
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
Representation ID: 720
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects
Para. 6.17 states that in addition to providing new homes within central Ipswich, the delivery of a sustainable urban extension on greenfield land at the Northern Fringe will also occur during the plan period. Crest fully supports this strategy. Crest agrees that the combination of the Northern Fringe alongside all of the residential development opportunities in central Ipswich is the only way to ensure that the Borough's housing target can be met.
See attached.
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
Representation ID: 789
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We support this approach but unfortunately the CS will not deliver these aims. By allowing multiple starts across the entire Northern Fringe for housing development and removing the target to develop brownfield sites there will be a major detrimental impact on regeneration of brownfield sites in deprived areas. Developers will focus on new housing on greenfield sites as it is cheaper and easier for them to do so. Clearly the priority should be to develop brownfield sites, especially those in more deprived areas, which is a far more sustainable approach. As drafted the CS will fail to regenerate such areas.
see attached