Preferred Options Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Review

Support

Representation ID: 25926

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

We support the recognition in the vision that by 2036 a range of new homes should be provided across the Borough and, importantly, within the Housing Market Area, to meet needs. The amount of new homes needed cannot be provided within the administrative boundary of Ipswich alone. It is therefore important to recognise the role of the wider Housing Market Area in the Vision.

The Vision also rightly refers to growth in the Ipswich economy. To deliver this vision, it is important that the Local Plan provides for sufficient levels of growth.

Object

Representation ID: 25927

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

Do not support the figures included in objective 3.

The figures reflect the baseline forecasts/projections. National policy is supportive of authorities planning for levels of growth above the baseline. As it stands, the Preferred Options plans for a level of growth that is below that previously indicated by joint SHMA. The Local Plan should include housing and job figures that plan for growth, rather than the minimum.

The figures proposed in the Preferred Options document fail to support growth in the ISPA. The economic growth ambition is not reflected in the level of new homes and jobs being planned for.

Support

Representation ID: 25929

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

We support the recognition that the Council should work with other local authorities in the ISPA to ensure a coordinated approach to planning and development.

Object

Representation ID: 25930

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

Support the ambition for Ipswich namely boosting economic growth and housing delivery, to meet needs, unlock potential and support cohesive communities. Support the recognition that Ipswich sits within a wider area, which demonstrates strong functional relationships.

We strongly agree with the need for joint, or aligned approaches given Ipswich's tight administrative boundary. Choices about directions for growth within the Borough at the edge of the town are limited. It is necessary to adopt a cross boundary approach.

Disappointing that the Preferred Options does not plan for a more ambitious level of housing or economic growth (beyond the minimum starting point).

Object

Representation ID: 25931

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

We do not support the level of new jobs and homes planned for in Policy ISPA1. The level of growth reflects the minimum baseline only. The plan should deliver a more ambitious level of growth that reflects the role of Ipswich as a driver for economic growth in the wider sub-region.

Support

Representation ID: 25932

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

We support the recognition that the Council should work with neighbouring authorities to address housing need within the Ipswich Housing Market Area. The Preferred Options accepts that there will be a need for future development beyond the Ipswich administrative boundary. There should be a particular focus on delivering this growth in those areas located around the Ipswich fringe, including appropriate sites in Mid Suffolk. This is logical given the direct/functional relationship between such areas and the Ipswich urban area.

Object

Representation ID: 25933

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

It would be perverse if the Local Plan was to be revised to use the lower 2014-based projects as these are below the 2016-based projections and would be inconsistent with the Government's central objective of boosting housing delivery.

The standard method should be seen as a minimum/ starting point only and a higher level of growth should be planned for to support the role of Ipswich in the wider sub-region.

Object

Representation ID: 25935

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

The target for job growth fails to reflect the role of Ipswich as the economic driver for the wider sub-region. The figure is based on the baseline 2016 EEFM forecast. It fails to provide for growth beyond the baseline forecasts.

The policy is also worded in a way to encourage the provision of approximately 15,580 jobs. This is not framed in a positive way, e.g. by stating that this figure is as an absolute minimum.

The jobs figure should be reviewed and reflect a more ambitious target reflecting the role of Ipswich in the wider Functional Economic Area.

Object

Representation ID: 25937

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

The wording of DM10 must be carefully considered. For example, reference to Plan 6 shows that land to the north of Whitton Lane is included as part of the green rim. This land is also allocated for employment use. This demonstrates that, if applied too literally, DM10 could conflict with other key allocations. It is clear in certain cases (Whitton Lane) that there will be limited opportunities for the site to contribute to the creation of a green rim. The policy should recognise that the application of the green rim policy must take account of other proposed and permitted uses.