Object

Representation ID: 5704

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points. Support the strategy of urban renaissance in Ipswich and note the first bullet point 'it will maximise opportunities to re-use previously developed land within central Ipswich.' The proposed removal of the 60% target for development on brownfield land is a negative step. With the multi-site development of the Garden Suburb concerned that developers will focus on greenfield development. This will have a detrimental impact on the regeneration of brownfield sites particularly in the town centre and deprived areas.

Object

Representation ID: 5705

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points. 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 that 2021 or not at all this will adversely impact on the integrity of a European site.

Object

Representation ID: 5706

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the NFPG's points. 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 that 2021 or not at all this will adversely impact on the integrity of a European site. The Core Strategy fails to identify and plan for key strategic wastewater infrastructure. There is the possibility that a major new pipeline will be needed from the Garden Suburb to Cliff Quay.

Object

Representation ID: 5707

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's comments on 8.70 [CS6]. There is no public evidence on of any strategic policy outcomes from the IPA. There are no joint Topic Papers on housing growth, jobs growth and strategic infrastructure. Evidence base documents referred to in 8.70 have not been made available which is in breach of the Development Plan Document process. The Core Strategy should better ensure effective co-operation between Ipswich Borough Council and neighbouring authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 5708

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points on 8.99 [CS9]. 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: 5710

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection group's points on 8.124 [CS12]. 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: 5712

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points. 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 that 2021 or not at all this will adversely impact on the integrity of a European site.

Object

Representation ID: 5715

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points on 8.177 [CS17]. 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: 5716

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SSOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points on 8.213 [CS20]. 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: 5717

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points. 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.'