Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

Object

Representation ID: 5426

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 NPPF encourages the re-use of previously developed land. The proposed removal of the 60% target for brownfield land development is a negative step. With multi-site development at the Northern Fringe, concerned that developers will focus on greenfield rather than brownfield. This will have a detrimental impact on the regeneration of brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5427

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

Selectively referencing paragraph 47 of the NPPF gives the impression that the Council has no option but to comply. Paragraph 15 of the NPPR states 'as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the framework'. One such policy is 'sustainability'.

Object

Representation ID: 5429

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

This paragraph risks concentrating affordable housing in certain phases rather than integrating affordable housing throughout the development. We are concerned about a concentration of council housing that will fail to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities in accordance with the NPPF. In this respect we note IBC's planning application for Ravenswood has been called in for inspection on this issue.

Object

Representation ID: 5430

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

Concern that the Country Park may not be delivered if only 499 homes are developed in Henley Gate or if only the other two parts of the Garden Suburb are developed. If the Country Park is delivered later than 2021 or not at all this will adversely impact on the integrity of a European site.

Object

Representation ID: 5431

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

Support the goal of ensuring Ipswich receives all the infrastructure it needs but are concerned that the proposed development of the Garden Suburb without adequate new road infrastructure will severely impact on traffic congestion and air quality and affect the quality of life of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 5432

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

Support the inclusion of paragraph 8.213 however disagree that it is not practical to include such a route in the strategy. In our opinion without some form of northern bypass 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.

Object

Representation ID: 5434

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

Object to the change from 'rear garden area' to 'private garden area' as this will result in much smaller dwelling plots, some with no rear gardens at all and more cramming together of properties including infill. Welcome the stipulation in 9.21 that 'garden sizes need to be calculated independently of any parking space(s) to be provided.'

Support

Representation ID: 5439

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

We welcome the stipulation in Para 9.21 that 'Garden sizes need to be calculated independently of any parking space(s) to be provided.'

Object

Representation ID: 5440

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

It is unclear how 'significant adverse impacts' in bullet point (a) will be defined.

Object

Representation ID: 5462

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 target is very unambitious. Low income is a key factor in deprivation but is not included as an indicator. The Core Strategy needs to be more effective in tackling this issue.