Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Search representations
Results for Northern Fringe Protection Group search
New searchObject
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
4.4
Representation ID: 5325
Received: 03/03/2015
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Number of people: 323
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? No
Until recently (2012/13) little effort has been made to constructively engage with neighbouring authorities. There is no recent evidence of effective and deliverable policies on strategic cross-boundary matters. The Core Strategy should not be examined until such work is released. The effectiveness of the Core Strategy would be greatly improved through cross-boundary joint initiatives and the public should have the opportunity to comment on these. Any intentions for development of the former sugar beet site (in Babergh District and recently purchased by Ipswich Borough Council) should be examined as part of the Core Strategy Review.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
4.2
Representation ID: 5326
Received: 03/03/2015
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Number of people: 323
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? No
Until recently there has been little public evidence of around engaging and reaching agreement with neighbouring authorities on housing, economy and infrastructure despite the IPA Board. Ipswich was not involved in the commissioning of the 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Welcome the more recent increased frequency of meetings an transparency of the Board. There is no evidence of strategic policy outcomes from the IPA. There are no published joint topic papers. Individual jobs targets for Ipswich and neighbouring authorities are unrealistic when compared with the January 2015 East of England Forecasting Model forecasts.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
CS20: Key Transport Proposals
Representation ID: 5338
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
Whilst CS20 supports feasibility studies into a wet dock crossing and a 'northern bypass or a link road to the north of the town' at this stage such proposals can only be viewed as aspirational. In our opinion without the latter the development of the Ipswich Garden Suburb is unsustainable and should not be supported due to traffic congestion and the potential damaging impact on air quality. Without the northern bypass or link road the CS is unsound and should be rejected.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
CS17: Delivering Infrastructure
Representation ID: 5376
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
There is no evidence of objectively assessed needs for freshwater and foul water infrastructure in the Borough or IPA, no reference to strategic solutions and no listing in infrastructure tables. The catch-all term 'utilities' should not be used as the Core Strategy will fail without strategic wastewater infrastructure including upgrading the sewage treatment works at Cliff Quay, Anglian Water Ipswich Water Reuse project and a solution for Ipswich Garden Suburb which may require a pipeline to Cliff Quay. Concerned the development will severely impact traffic congestion and air quality. A relief road or bypass to north Ipswich is required.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
CS2: The Location and Nature of Development
Representation ID: 5388
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
An alternative of co-operating more closely with other authorities to find a more sustainable location than the Northern Fringe, which is remote from new employment sites and not connected by sustainable transport, could have been identified. These are reasons why housing needs are unable to be met in the Borough, under the terms of the National Planning policy Framework. Support the strategy of urban renaissance in central Ipswich but concerned that multi-site development of the Garden Suburb will have a detrimental impact on this. The 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
CS9: Previously Developed Land
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
CS10: Ipswich Garden Suburb
Representation ID: 5390
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
Traffic from the Garden Suburb will have a severe adverse impact across the whole of north Ipswich and the town centre. Assumptions that use will be made of public transport, cycling and walking are not realistic due to the location of employment sites. Welcome the recent work commissioned by Suffolk County Council around solutions for the road network around North Ipswich. There has been no traffic assessment of the effects of multiple starts. The foul water pipeline from north Ipswich to the treatment works is at capacity. There is no mechanism to ensure timely delivery of the Country Park.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
10: Table 8A
Representation ID: 5391
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
There is no evidence of objectively assessed needs for freshwater and foul water infrastructure or to strategic solutions, and no listing in the infrastructure tables.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
8.205
Representation ID: 5393
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
Air quality issues, which are likely to be made worse by increasing traffic congestion, may also impact on the effectiveness of the Core Strategy. The 2014 Air Quality Annual Report (July 2014) shows exceedances of nitrogen dioxide at locations within and outside of the Air Quality Management Areas. The Council needs to provide evidence that air pollution will not breach legal limits.
See attachment
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
3:
Representation ID: 5396
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
ONS migration data used by the Council only extends to 2010/11, the latest ONS forecast shows no net migration from 2012-2031 for Ipswich. DCLG's February 2015 household projections suggest a need for 10,434 new homes. The baseline household figure used is too high. The Viability Report indicates 28% affordable housing for the Garden Suburb, the affordable housing target should not compromise delivery of other infrastructure. It is not clear whether the jobs target relates to Ipswich or the Ipswich Policy Area. How will jobs growth be measured? A higher population has been used to estimate jobs growth than population growth.
See attachment