ipswich.gov.uk
CS9: Previously Developed Land
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5142
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: The Ipswich Society
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Support but require changes. We believe that the target percentage should stated in this statement; we suggest 35% in the period 2014 to 2031.
We believe that the target percentage should stated in this statement; we suggest 35% in the period 2014 to 2031.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5389
Received: 03/03/2015
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Number of people: 323
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The proposed removal of the 60% target for development on brownfield land is a negative step.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5415
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy CS9 does not provide an effective policy in the context of the Borough's constrained housing land supply and should be deleted. Table 3 demonstrates an overall deficiency of supply. Land within the town centre and Garden Suburb is proposed to be allocated for development. There is limited other land which could be allocated. The practical function of Policy CS9 and the degree to which it can be effective is therefore unclear. CS9 cannot have any material impact upon housing delivery, since the proportion of previously developed land which can be brought forward is a function of the supply available.
See attached.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5476
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Mrs Ann Jones
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The core strategy seeks to address to need to accommodate 13,500 houses with the northern fringe development known as the 'Ipswich Garden Suburb' accounting for 3,500 houses. The principle of brown field first has now been dropped as I understand, this is rather short sighted. Brown field developments are normally more sustainable in all respects. It would appear that the desire on behalf of developers, to maximise profit is the key driver for the demise of brown field first.
The core strategy seeks to address to need to accommodate 13,500 houses with the northern fringe development known as the 'Ipswich Garden Suburb' accounting for 3,500 houses. The principle of brown field first has now been dropped as I understand, this is rather short sighted. Brown field developments are normally more sustainable in all respects. It would appear that the desire on behalf of developers, to maximise profit is the key driver for the demise of brown field first.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5478
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: Mr James Jones
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The core strategy seeks to address to need to accommodate 13,500 houses with the northern fringe development known as the 'Ipswich Garden Suburb' accounting for 3,500 houses. The principle of brown field first has now been dropped as I understand, this is rather short sighted. Brown field developments are normally more sustainable in all respects. It would appear that the desire on behalf of developers, to maximise profit is the key driver for the demise of brown field first.
The core strategy seeks to address to need to accommodate 13,500 houses with the northern fringe development known as the 'Ipswich Garden Suburb' accounting for 3,500 houses. The principle of brown field first has now been dropped as I understand, this is rather short sighted. Brown field developments are normally more sustainable in all respects. It would appear that the desire on behalf of developers, to maximise profit is the key driver for the demise of brown field first.
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5558
Received: 27/02/2015
Respondent: Westerfield Parish Council
Policy CS9 Previously Developed land
Westerfield Parish Council supports the policy of focussing on previously developed (brownfield) land first.
Policy CS9 Previously Developed land
Westerfield Parish Council supports the policy of focussing on previously developed (brownfield) land first.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5575
Received: 25/02/2015
Respondent: Ipswich Conservative Group
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The importance of Brownfield sites is not emphasised enough in the Development Plan.
In an urban environment like Ipswich, it is clearly important that maximum use should be made of brownfield sites as a means of meeting housing needs. Brownfield development should be prioritised.
The importance of Brownfield sites is not emphasised enough in the Development Plan.
In an urban environment like Ipswich, it is clearly important that maximum use should be made of brownfield sites as a means of meeting housing needs. Brownfield development should be prioritised, but the proposed Strategy carefully lessens the importance given to brownfield development:
(i) The previous 60% target for the development of brownfield land has been deleted.
(ii) The start date for the development of the Ipswich Garden Suburb has been removed and there is no longer a provision that only limited development could take place before 2021.
(iii) Multi-site development is to be allowed in the Garden Suburb, resulting in up to 200 new dwellings to be built each year from 2018.
The outcome of this approach will result in the development of greenfield sites before brownfield land as this will be easier and cheaper for developers. At the same time the re-vitalisation of brownfield land will be delayed.
The National Planning Framework aims "to encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed". The Council should thus be encouraging the maximum use of brownfield sites. Developing brownfield land should run alongside & have priority over developing greenfield sites such as Ipswich Garden Suburb.
To ensure that brownfield land is developed and to preserve agricultural land, the target for brownfield development should be reinstated.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5692
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
SOCS endorse Northern Fringe Protection Group points. The proposed removal of the 60% target for development on brownfield land is a negative step.
See attached.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5696
Received: 02/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Julian Mason
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
the development of the garden suburb is questionable. The council should revisit assumptions and models. It is probable that development of brownfield sites would be sufficient for a more realistic (and modest) growth in demand.
See attached
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 24215
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: EDF Energy Plc
Support this policy approach and agree with the priority of building on previously developed land.
See attachment