Comment

Representation ID: 24697

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

SPS believes that the Baseline, Scenario A should be planned for. We believe that to aim for greater economic growth would require a substantial increase in the level of housing that would be undeliverable given the identified constraints on available housing land.

Comment

Representation ID: 24769

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hunter

Growth scenario A baseline looks more achievable and indeed deliverable, particularly in the light of constraints acting to protect sensitive locations and changes coming out of the UK's exit from the European Union. Changes in energy production as well as the energy market itself may act against a new nuclear power station at Sizewell. Taking Sizewell out of the equation would have some impact on growth scenarios B and C. In any event growth scenario C is over ambitious and probably unrealistic.

Comment

Representation ID: 24806

Received: 14/10/2017

Respondent: East Suffolk Travellers Association

We consider that Scenario B, the Medium Growth Forecast, is a realistic one. Ipswich is one of the key centres of population and employment in East Anglia, improved rail services to London, Cambridge and Norwich are planned while land and housing costs are relatively low for South East England. The town is therefore ideally placed to attract jobs and housing demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 24820

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Wildlife Group

The important natural environment and the limited infrastructure of this area suggest that Scenario A with low growth, is the most suitable option.

Comment

Representation ID: 24958

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

None of these, as they take no account of BREXIT and of the Government's most recent Housing White Paper. A more realistic growth scenario based on the Government's White paper target and the Experian jobs target should be adopted, which we note is far higher than historic trends. We have a number of concerns with the underlying evidence basis for this section in relation to the OAN for the Ipswich Housing Market Area (HMA) and individual local planning authorities which has been assessed through a SHMA report, May 2017. [Please see full comment for more detail].

Comment

Representation ID: 25008

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Railfuture East Anglia

Scenario B the Medium growth forecast. Ipswich is one of the key centres of population and employment in East Anglia. Improved rail links to London and Cambridge are planned during the plan period and currently, land and housing costs are relatively low for South East England. Ipswich is therefore ideally placed to attract jobs and housing demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 25024

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)

The eventual level of housing need to be considered by the authorities in the HMA will also dictate the development strategy adopted. As a minimum, the Councils should prepare strategies on the basis of 'Scenario B'. This is a positive approach towards housing delivery and economic growth that could be supported by the HBF. The Councils should also consider 'Scenario C'. In taking forward such an approach, with large scale strategic allocations, Councils will need to be clear about the timescales required to deliver this level of growth, and support smaller sites for quicker delivery within the first ten years.

Comment

Representation ID: 25038

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

It is not considered appropriate to plan for the 'baseline' scenario (A). If this scenario was to be progressed, the Local Plan is likely to inhibit future growth across the HMA. Subject to further background work, the level of growth proposed in the 'high increase in growth' scenario (C) would be most appropriate to ensure the required levels of housing and economic growth over the plan period. The 'medium increase in growth' scenario (B) should, however, be seen as an absolute minimum. Any growth scenario must also take account of the substantial need for affordable housing across the HMA. A further reasonable uplift (beyond the economic uplift) should be allowed for to meet the identified need for affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 25069

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

None of these, as they take no account of BREXIT and of the Government's most recent Housing White Paper. A more realistic growth scenario based on the Government's White paper target and the Experian jobs target should be adopted, which we note is far higher than historic trends. We have a number of concerns with the underlying evidence basis for this section in relation to the OAN for the Ipswich Housing Market Area (HMA) and individual local planning authorities which have been assessed through a SHMA report, May 2017. [Please see full comment for more detail].

Comment

Representation ID: 25098

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

As a landowner and investor in the Ipswich area and wider sub-region, AquiGen is supportive of the ambitious growth scenarios identified in the consultation document. AquiGen does not have a specific view at this stage on the growth scenario that should be adopted. Instead, given the nature of their land interest, their focus is on the actual implications for site allocation decisions.

Comment

Representation ID: 25110

Received: 30/11/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments

It is likely that the Local Plans will need to plan for additional growth beyond that
identified in the most recent SHMA to ensure that the economic development ambitions of the area can be achieved through positive plan making. The need to proactively enable sustainable economic growth should be at the forefront of any decision making regarding the future growth scenario.

Comment

Representation ID: 25176

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Environment Agency

Options 4 and 6 propose Framlingham as a location for 6% and 4% of housing respectively. The sewage treatment works is over capacity already, so it is important to note that further capacity will be required to support growth. The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report identifies the need to invest in sewage treatment capacity with regard to an increase in population. The Shared Evidence Base section and SA Scoping Report refer to a water cycle study, and the issue of available foul water treatment capacity should help inform the location and timing of development.
When deciding where to locate growth, flood risk is an essential consideration. The SFRA must be used as an evidence base to ensure that development is sequentially sited in areas with the lowest probability of flooding as defined by the Planning Practice Guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 25221

Received: 27/11/2017

Respondent: Bloor Homes

If the Council were to pursue Scenario A, there is a substantial risk that the Local Plan would become almost immediately out of date and would fail to meet development needs in full. It is suggested that the Local Plan should adopt the approach as per Scenario B, as a minimum. If the Council wish to maximise the plan's social and economic benefits, and the potential for infrastructure improvements, a scenario closer to C should be pursued. It is submitted that the Council should seek to identify potential sites that could deliver the higher growth scenario. Growth should be focussed where the economic and social benefits will be maximised;

Comment

Representation ID: 25247

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Community Media CIC

Culture leads development - has been hugely successful in many other centres around the UK
All included
Nourishing and enriching environment
Everyone has access/has a say
Affordable housing

Comment

Representation ID: 25282

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

We do not believe it to be prudent during these uncertain political and economic times to plan for anything other than growth scenario A. Brexit on the horizon could bring many changes to housing needs especially due to immigration factors, so we believe a more cautious approach is needed now with the potential to look at this again when the future looks more stable.

Comment

Representation ID: 25341

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Greenways Countryside Project

Agent: Mr James Baker

Scenario A, the lowest growth option is the most appropriate for this area, due to the limited infrastructure and important natural environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 25360

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

With the progress towards Norfolk and Suffolk devolution Scenario C High Increase in Growth is preferred. This will deliver housing that will contribute to funding infrastructure that the area needs, it will deliver affordable housing and will deliver economic growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 25399

Received: 29/11/2017

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Over recent years Babergh and Mid Suffolk areas have not met their respective levels of housing need due to issues of market strength and scheme deliverability. The future plans would need to ensure that the deliverability of spatial options is robustly tested to demonstrate capability to meet the level of need within the HMA. In this regard it should be noted the diagram set out on pg.27 has not been subject to consideration of constrains and deliverability at this stage.

We support the review of employment sites within Ipswich. The outcome of this assessment will be critical to informing options on development capacity within Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 25481

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Publication of the Government's "Planning for the right homes in the right places" consultation proposals post-dates publication of the Ipswich consultation. Whilst the CLG standard methodology indicates that Ipswich's own OAN number might fall, all three adjoining authorities' numbers increase. The need for a joint planning approach demonstrates the complexity of demographic, economic and housing interactions across administrative boundaries, and in light of the CLG consultation, we wish to reserve the right to comment on detail about the growth scenarios. That said, Ipswich has been underachieving and underdelivering in respect of housing supply and we fully support the ambition expressed in the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution agreement to substantially increase housing supply, and on that basis, would support Scenario C - High Increase in Growth pending further clarity on the government's consultation.