Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Comment

Representation ID: 24954

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Yes.
Are Babergh and Mid-Suffolk prepared to work with Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal to address cross-boundary issues and deliver additional homes?
Add reference to increasing levels of violent crime in Ipswich and fear of personal safety (especially at night).
Falling house sales in Ipswich caused by e.g. stamp duty changes and people choosing to extend.
The poor coordination of utility works. A permit system is urgently required to minimise disruption.
Ipswich has sub-standard cycling infrastructure, which requires major improvement in order to encourage sustainable travel and reduce congestion.
Ipswich now has five AQMAs.
The need to create more high-quality and better-paid jobs to improve the economy.
Assess the impact of BREXIT on the SHMA.

Comment

Representation ID: 24955

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Due to the confined boundaries of Ipswich Borough, there is an urgent need to protect existing green and open space and improve usability.

Comment

Representation ID: 24956

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Transport/congestion/poor sustainable travel options and air quality. Lack of high quality jobs and the need to improve green space/corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 24957

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure. In particular, road improvements to ease congestion and measures to improve air quality. It is clear that existing infrastructure - especially the transport network - is already failing. It is also important to deliver high quality jobs thereby increasing the average wage of Ipswich residents and to protect the decreasing green areas in Ipswich Borough. All these measures have an important role to play in improving the health and well-being of Ipswich residents. Further expansion of Ipswich must be accompanied by infrastructure improvements.

Comment

Representation ID: 24958

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

None of these, as they take no account of BREXIT and of the Government's most recent Housing White Paper. A more realistic growth scenario based on the Government's White paper target and the Experian jobs target should be adopted, which we note is far higher than historic trends. We have a number of concerns with the underlying evidence basis for this section in relation to the OAN for the Ipswich Housing Market Area (HMA) and individual local planning authorities which has been assessed through a SHMA report, May 2017. [Please see full comment for more detail].

Comment

Representation ID: 24959

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Housing Target: Yes. As the Government's White Paper clearly shows, the OAN for Ipswich Borough is too high and should be revised downwards.
Jobs Target: Yes. The EEFM forecast is clearly not "trend-based" and it is extremely misleading to imply that it is. It is too high as evidenced by the Experian figure in the Ipswich SHMA report, which should be used for Ipswich Borough. This is still far higher than historic trends.
We have a number of concerns with the underlying evidence basis for this section. [Please refer to full comments for more detail].

Comment

Representation ID: 24960

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

No. Communities will not accept higher growth targets until such improvements are delivered and are shown to be effective. There are already sizeable new housing developments planned in and around Ipswich. Higher targets should not be set until there is robust evidence that infrastructure can cope with the current planned expansion. E.g. there is major concern on how the road network will cope with the Ipswich Garden Suburb development and the impacts of this need to be monitored and appraised as it is built out before setting higher targets. There are also concerns over sewage and fresh water infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 24961

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

All of these need to be provided to meet the current Local Plan targets. It is critical for Ipswich that the Local Plan Review seeks to address the severe congestion in the local road network that regularly occurs even without the closure of the Orwell Bridge. A roadworks permit system for Ipswich Borough is a must-have. A full cross-boundary Transport Assessment for the draft Local Plans is required to determine what additional transport infrastructure is required and where and when. If it cannot be provided then higher targets cannot be set, as it would be unsustainable to do so.

Comment

Representation ID: 24962

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Yes, but this question misses the point of addressing the current levels of congestion, which will only increase under the current Local Plan proposals. It is critical for Ipswich that the Local Plan Review addresses the current severe congestion in the local road network, especially through Ipswich, that regularly occurs even without the closure of the Orwell Bridge. A roadworks permit system for Ipswich Borough will help ease congestion.

Comment

Representation ID: 24963

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

No. Ipswich Borough cannot meet its current OAN target. Any increase in homes targets would clearly not deliver any more affordable housing in the Borough due to land constraints. We support IBC building affordable housing on its own land but as it already plans to do this, increasing the homes target will have no effect on numbers delivered. Affordable housing will only be provided in Ipswich Borough by commercial developers if it is viable to do so. Increasing the Ipswich OAN will not result in increased affordable housing outside the Borough as IBC would have little say in planning applications.