Object

Representation ID: 25663

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

The evidence base ignores latest population and employment figures. It fails to consider the potential impacts of the drop of employment people from 67,300 to 66,500 in the latest NOMIS figures.

Evidence clearly demonstrates that Ipswich employment is considerably exposed to macro-economic events and that it is far too simplistic and incorrect to assume steady straight-line jobs growth, which is more removed from reality. Refinement of the employment modelling is required. The jobs creation numbers are not realistic. "Jobs" needs to be defined and "encourage" changed to "aims to deliver".

Paragraph 41 of the Topic Paper is incorrect.

Support

Representation ID: 25690

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: East of England Co-Operative Society

Boss Hall Business Park is safeguarded for employment and ancillary uses (Policy DM32). The safeguarding of this site is supported, provided it is not restricted to B-Class employment uses (see further comments on Policy DM32).

It is noted that Policy CS13, criterion c, recognises other employment-generating uses to include, inter alia, leisure and retail, and this is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 25714

Received: 04/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Chamber of Commerce

We will be pleased to work with Ipswich Borough Council with the aim of helping to deliver the economic, business and job growth namely 15,580 jobs by 2036. Nevertheless, we wonder whether this target is realistic given the challenge of delivering new housing, the future supply of labour and skills and the possible effects of Brexit. Furthermore, a recent report by Centre for Cities highlighted that Ipswich was losing more people per annum than other towns and cities. However, we reiterate the point that sites currently allocated for employment should be sustained due to their importance for economic growth.

Object

Representation ID: 25719

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: AquiGen

Based on the over-allocation of land identified by the Evidence Base, we consider that the proposed allocations under the Local Plan require further review. This is to ensure the Local Plan is justified and consistent with the Evidence Base. If not, the Local Plan cannot be found sound. In order to achieve soundness, we recommend the proposed allocations are reviewed to reduce the amount of land that is allocated. We recommend that the amount of land identified for allocation in the Plan is reduced under Policy CS13 and the supporting paragraphs.

Object

Representation ID: 25882

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Ideally ABP would like the inclusion of policy and wording which specifically seeks to support and protect the function and role of the Port in the town. This would be consistent with the existing recognition given in the NALEP Strategic Economic Plan.

In the context of the above, the new policy should:
- Identify the operational Port estate and its relationship to the town centre and IP-One area;
- support port development and the growth of the port; and
- address the particular development considerations in the interface area between the port estate and the town centre and IP-One areas

Object

Representation ID: 25935

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

The target for job growth fails to reflect the role of Ipswich as the economic driver for the wider sub-region. The figure is based on the baseline 2016 EEFM forecast. It fails to provide for growth beyond the baseline forecasts.

The policy is also worded in a way to encourage the provision of approximately 15,580 jobs. This is not framed in a positive way, e.g. by stating that this figure is as an absolute minimum.

The jobs figure should be reviewed and reflect a more ambitious target reflecting the role of Ipswich in the wider Functional Economic Area.