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

Object

Representation ID: 24442

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

SOCS view is very much aligned with North Fringe Protection Group (NFPG) detailed response. SOCS sign up to the NFPG submission attached as Appendix A.
Part B for CSR MM5, MM6, MM9, MM10, MM18, and MM27
SOCS specific additional concerns relate to: CSR MM1, MM2, MM4, MM16, MM17, MM22, MM24, MM25, MM36, MM37,MM38, in MM39-Objective 11, MM44-Policy maps.
IBC comment: specific objections have been entered against all these modifications except MM2, MM4, MM16, MM25 and MM44, which are logged as general objections.

Object

Representation ID: 24443

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

SOCS view is very much aligned with North Fringe Protection Group (NFPG) detailed response. SOCS sign up to the NFPG submission attached as Appendix A.
Part B for CSR MM5, MM6, MM9, MM10, MM18, and MM27
SOCS specific additional concerns relate to: CSR MM1, MM2, MM4, MM16, MM17, MM22, MM24, MM25, MM36, MM37,MM38, in MM39-Objective 11, MM44-Policy maps.
IBC comment: specific objections have been entered against all these modifications except MM2, MM4, MM16, MM25 and MM44, which are logged as general objections.

Object

Representation ID: 24444

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

SOCS view is very much aligned with North Fringe Protection Group (NFPG) detailed response. SOCS sign up to the NFPG submission attached as Appendix A.
Part B for CSR MM5, MM6, MM9, MM10, MM18, and MM27
SOCS specific additional concerns relate to: CSR MM1, MM2, MM4, MM16, MM17, MM22, MM24, MM25, MM36, MM37,MM38, in MM39-Objective 11, MM44-Policy maps.
IBC comment: specific objections have been entered against all these modifications except MM2, MM4, MM16, MM25 and MM44, which are logged as general objections.

Object

Representation ID: 24519

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

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: 24521

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

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.

Object

Representation ID: 24523

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

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: 24524

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

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.

Support

Representation ID: 24525

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

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: 24527

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Number of people: 100

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Travel Ipswich needs to meet its 15% target in order for the Local plan to be delivered in a sustainable and effective manner. Evidence indicates that the expected modal shift of Travel Ipswich has not materialised. It calls into question the validity of the traffic modelling to mirror real life experience. Traffic assessments underpinning the local plan should be subject to independent examination. IBC and the Highways Authority should implement additional measures to mitigate the impact on traffic caused by growth. The SA fails to take into account the risk of non¬delivery of the 15% target. Revised text is proposed.

Support

Representation ID: 24529

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

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.