Post Submission Main Modifications Core Strategy and Policies (DPD) and Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) (DPD)

Support

Representation ID: 24354

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

We welcome recognition of the need to strengthen the duty to co-operate between IBC and its neighbouring Local Authorities in the preparation of joint or aligned Local Plans with a target adoption date of 2019. Over the past 5 years there has been a failure to produce any cross boundary outcomes on housing, jobs and strategic infrastructure and in our opinion, there has been a failure in the 'duty to co-operate'. We also welcome the recognition of an urgent need for IBC to work with neighbouring authorities to produce an up-to-date OAN for the housing market area and employment growth.

Object

Representation ID: 24357

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

We are supportive of the changes regarding employment land and welcome the review of the jobs target (which we consider unrealistically high) and the employment land requirements as part of a joint work programme with neighbouring Local Authorities on joint or aligned Local Plans. We are concerned that recent developments for new tenants for the key Futura Park site are for existing Ipswich businesses, such as Audi and Mazda/Volvo dealerships, which are relocating from other parts of Ipswich rather than being for new employers.

Object

Representation ID: 24358

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

We are pleased to see the increased emphasis on maximising east-west capacity in the public transport system to ease traffic congestion but have yet to see any indication of how this might be achieved.

Support

Representation ID: 24359

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

We are pleased to see hedgerows being afforded protection during site developments.

Support

Representation ID: 24362

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

Pleased that previous representations on air quality have been taken into account in changing Objective 11. The High Court ruling about UK compliance with European law shows that further action to improve air quality is required in Ipswich to prevent current exceedances. The 2015 Detailed Assessment for air quality within Ipswich Borough is due to go the Executive on 29 November. An additional AQMA is now required (St Matthews St) and Woodbridge Rd has also been included in an AQMA. Several monitoring points show regular winter exceedances but as summer months are within limits, these are not included within AQMAs.

Support

Representation ID: 24364

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

In view of the lack of community sports facilities in the north of Ipswich, we are pleased to see the clarification that sports facilities associated with the proposed IGS secondary school will be required to be made available for dual use with the community.

Object

Representation ID: 24368

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

There is no evidence that 9777 dwellings should be a minimum figure especially in the light of the latest Government household projections for Ipswich over the forecast period of 7799 dwellings. Paragraph 3.8 states that "OAN for new housing in Ipswich could be substantially more." There is no evidence of this and this sentence should be deleted. This second-guesses the findings of the proposed study. The target should be amended to 7799 dwellings in accordance with the latest Govt household projections. As a minimum the word "substantially" should be deleted. Even 9777 could be too high and have adverse impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 24369

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

There is no evidence that that IGS housing can be delivered within the required timeframe as there is still no solution to key infrastructure issues including traffic, drainage and foul water. SCC has objected to the Crest planning application for IGS and the earlier CBRE application. The CS needs to recognise that the IGS might not be fully delivered in the required timescale. This change is required due to the implications of the removal of the infrastructure delivery triggers from the CS. Table 3 is unsound: it is unclear and needs correcting. Alternative wording is suggested for CS7 clause B).

Object

Representation ID: 24370

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Modifications fail to address major issues raised by the community e.g. impacts on congestion and air quality and risks of allocating the whole IGS. Concerned that removing the infrastructure triggers from the Local Plan means they will carry less weight, there is no certainty of community groups being consulted/involved in the formulation of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and there is an increased risk of the infrastructure not being delivered or being watered down as a consequence. There should be a requirement for the triggers to be developed with key stakeholders including the general public through a formal consultation process. Pleased to see a more realistic approach to affordable housing at IGS and support the cap.

Object

Representation ID: 24372

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 100

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Proposed text explains how the triggers will be identified. For clarification and the avoidance of doubt, we want to see specific reference that "key stakeholders" includes community groups as well as Statutory Consultees and developers. Given the importance of the triggers to the sustainable delivery of the IGS and the Local Plan, there should be a requirement for the triggers to be developed in conjunction with community groups that have excellent local knowledge of local infrastructure and the issues that need to be addressed. We are also concerned about IGS phasing (8.108) and require community involvement in strategic phasing plans.