ipswich.gov.uk

6.17

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

Please see attached.

Support

Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Representation ID: 720

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

see attached