Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Object

Representation ID: 761

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Jobs growth target should be altered by deleting the words 'up to' at bullet 3b and elsewhere so it reads '12,500 additional jobs shall be provided'. The figure will need amending in the light of the most up to date forecasts. The Core Strategy should be employment led, not housing-led.

Object

Representation ID: 762

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst IBC should support Suffolk Growth Strategy and NALEP it is important to focus on top growth sectors in Ipswich which are different. The CS must make this clear in order to translate this in to both the Ipswich Economic Strategy and the Ipswich Economic Development Strategy Implementation Plan. Business Service, Professional & Technical Services and Health & Care are the sectors that do not appear to be adequately reflected.

Object

Representation ID: 763

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The CS should retain as a goal a balance between homes growth and economic growth which the NPPF requires. In para 8.141 'The town cannot support a growing population without commensurate change in level of accessible jobs provision' should therefore not be deleted

Object

Representation ID: 764

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The housing target of 13,550 homes is unachievable within the Borough and relies on windfall sites and neighbouring Local Authorities to make up the shortfall of 4,611 dwellings ( last sentence of para)

Object

Representation ID: 765

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There are flaws in forecasts for population and households: data not up to date EEFM data dated 2012 not 2013 and latest ONS data not used as an example latest data shows inward migration decreasing. DCLG household projections have not been appropriate consideration despite being up to date (April 2013). Ipswich household date of 58,700 does not match April 2011 Census figure of 57,300. The SA/SEA process requires examination of baseline information based on the best data available, which is not so as they fais to use latest DCLG and EEFM forecasts; therefore CS and SA are unsound

Object

Representation ID: 766

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Recommended that a target or a number of small dependent targets are introduced for previously developed land to ensure regeneration sites, especially in areas of deprivation, are given priority over greenfield sites

Object

Representation ID: 767

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It would be more sustainable to develop brownfield sites closer to proposed new employment areas before developing the Garden Suburb. NPPF Section 17 encourages effective use of brownfield land. We are concerned that development of greenfield sites will prejudice development of brownfield sites which in Ipswich are in the more deprived areas which need regenerating.

Object

Representation ID: 768

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

If multiple starts across the proposed Garden Suburb are to be sanctioned the CS should set out this intention and how this will be managed in the context of Policy CS2

Object

Representation ID: 769

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is no reference specifically to water and sewage infrastructure as both have been identified as key issues for Ipswich in the NALEP 2014 Strategic Economic Plan. There are major unresolved issues specifically at the proposed Garden Suburb site regarding carrying foul water to a sewage treatment works.

Object

Representation ID: 770

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We believe the CS needs to have more emphasis on improving the lives of existing residents and homes-led expansion risks worsening lives. There needs to be more focus on: raising education standards; helping residents off benefits; reducing long term unemployment; revitalising the town centre; tackling traffic congestion; improving poor health and levels of physical activity; improving private rented housing stock. Without a focus on these issues we do not believe the CS complies with the NPPF, is not sustainable and is unsound.