Object

Representation ID: 5480

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 best available data has not been used. More recent data on air quality, average weekly wages, sports/open space provision, population and employment is available. Data showing changes in the number of jobs over the years should be included. The most recent DCLG, ONS and EEFM forecasts should be included. The Trend Migration scenario is flawed.

Object

Representation ID: 5481

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

SA should assess effects of 13,550 homes against evidence illustrating 10,434 are needed. SA should consider effects of multiple starts at the Garden Suburb. Conclusions of CBRE traffic assessment should be considered. SA should assess implications of Table 8B stating that initial works at the Country Park are dependent upon occupation of 500 dwellings at Henley Gate and should take account of the CBRE HRA stating the Country Park should be delivered before occupation of the first dwelling. The effect on redevelopment through removal of the brownfield land target and multiple starts at the Garden Suburb should be assessed.

Object

Representation ID: 5483

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

We want the best for Ipswich with the right policies put in place to deliver successful outcomes. This can only be achieved if the SA accurately identifies the many issues facing Ipswich, which are highly visible and recognised by its residents. As in our previous consultations responses, we maintain that the SA fails to accurately reflect the state of Ipswich and presents a very optimistic view of the impacts of the CS on the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 5484

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

Concerned that previous comments on Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 have been ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 5485

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

Table 3-2 fails to use the most recent baseline data. Suggested improvements to the objectives and indicators in Table 3-3 have been ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 5486

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

Pleased that the SA recommends updated traffic modelling. The SA does not adequately consider the effects of multiple starts from the Garden Suburb, the outputs of Suffolk County Council feasibility work into solutions for the road network around the Garden Suburb, the views of the highway authority that sustainable transport measures have not been adequately identified in the current planning application, congestion and capacity issues, the conclusions of the transport assessment and resulting air quality impacts submitted with the CBRE application, decreasing air quality, legally binding air quality limits and effects of poor air quality on cycling/walking.

Object

Representation ID: 5494

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 SA appears to assume that the jobs target applies to Ipswich Borough and takes no account of travel to work to employment sites outside the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 5495

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 SA needs to take account of the outputs from the Viability Testing for Ipswich Borough Council report which questions the viability of office, industrial and warehouse development. The jobs figure is based on over-estimated population growth, the SA should take this into account. The viability study challenges the viability of the Westgate site and the SA has not acknowledged this. The SA should recommend measures to improve the retail offer and deliver new jobs. The SA should assess the impact of developing the Sugar Beet Factory site on the delivery of the Core Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 5496

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 SA does not take account of lack of capacity for sewage treatment or the waste water issues arising from the expansion of Ipswich. The key waste water infrastructure needed should be specified in the Core Strategy. The SA should assess the implications of Table 8B stating that initial works at the Country Park are dependent upon occupation of 500 dwellings at Henley Gate and should take account of the CBRE HRA stating the Country Park should be delivered before occupation of the first dwelling.

Object

Representation ID: 5498

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 SA underestimates the impact of Objective ER3. Uncertainties should not be recorded where there are clearly going to be negative effects. This section needs to reflect the conclusions of the assessment of the plan and the effects of development of the Garden Suburb. The previous comment that there will obviously be an increase in traffic has been ignored, although the response in Appendix C states that it is agreed there is likely to be an effect.