Object

Representation ID: 24251

Received: 20/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Alexander McDonald

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I am writing to express disappointment that the key issues raised at the last consultation have been ignored in the modifications. There has been no reasons given.

There has been failure to address the obstacles to jobs growth identified in the viability testing report produced by experts Peter Brett associated in December 2014 and the employment space requirements shown by the East of England forecasting 2015 model.

Object

Representation ID: 24281

Received: 21/11/2015

Respondent: Mr Alfred Wheeler

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The failure to address the severe obstacles to job growth identified by the viability testing report produced by Peter Brett Associates in December 2014 and the employment space requirements identified by the East of England Forecasting 2015 Model.

Object

Representation ID: 24287

Received: 23/11/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Eileen Warren

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

No account has been taken of the Peter Bretts December 2014 Liability Testing Report and East of England 2015 Employment Space Requirement Model, which highlights the severe obstacle to jobs growth which clearly impact on housing needs in Ipswich and surrounding area.

Object

Representation ID: 24291

Received: 23/11/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Paragraph 3.4 of the Statement of Consultation does not accurately capture all issues raised, including in relation to addressing severe obstacles to growth identified by the viability report and the employment space requirements identified by the EEFM 2015. There has also been failure to consider how the acquisition of the sugar beet site will impact on jobs and homes growth strategies in the Borough. Concerned that the genuine concerns and issues raised by the public have been disregarded. CS1-CS6 may be undeliverable, therefore CS11-20 may be undeliverable. Too many imponderables will lead to likely non-delivery. Few solutions in the modifications.

Object

Representation ID: 24305

Received: 22/11/2015

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Paragraph 3.4 of the Statement of Consultation does not accurately capture all issues raised, including in relation to addressing severe obstacles to growth identified by the viability report and the employment space requirements identified by the EEFM 2015. There has also been failure to consider how the acquisition of the sugar beet site will impact on jobs and homes growth strategies in the Borough. Concerned that the genuine concerns and issues raised by the public have been disregarded.