Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
Search representations
Results for Northern Fringe Protection Group search
New searchObject
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
8.228
Representation ID: 771
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Further consideration of car parking solutions and the future of the Bury Road Park & Ride is required as part of the CS review
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
Chapter 2: New Planning System
Representation ID: 772
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The CS and SA must take account of revisions to the NPPF announced on 6th March relating to flood risk; plan soundness where land growth in years 11-15 is not identified; windfalls over the whole plan period; inclusion of student and older persons accommodation in assessing housing need; provision of infrastructure to support development and this as a constraint; importance of developing brownfield sites; clarification on refusing development on grounds of prematurity in relation to draft plans.
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
8.79
Representation ID: 773
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
IBC should revisit the Ipswich Population and Household projections and revise corresponding targets giving proper consideration to the DCLG 2011 data and the latest data including that from ONS, the EEFM models and by incorporating the 2011 Census Commuting numbers expected in March 2014.
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
8.141
Representation ID: 774
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The only principal employment growth site within the Borough boundary is the A14/ Ravenswood/Ransome's expansion which are not well connected to the proposed Garden suburb which would therefore seem to make increased car based commuting inevitable.
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
8.145
Representation ID: 775
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Combined CS jobs forecast is 38% higher than EEFM August 2013 data across Ipswich, Babergh, Suffolk Coastal and Mid-Suffolk, suggesting each authority's job targets may be unrealistic in relation to the aggregate potential. The disparity mainly comes from the Babergh/Mid-Suffolk forecast against that of EEFM. Babergh says the disparity is because of the need for jobs serving Ipswich which has insufficient space to provide them itself but this is not reflected in Ipswich CS jobs growth figures and suggest double counting and doubts about 'close working' between authorities.
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
8.193
Representation ID: 776
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
There are inconsistencies in the car parking policy and ambiguity about Bury Road Park & Ride, which the site allocations DPD suggests will be reopened whilst at Para 8.194 reference to additional Park & Ride has been deleted. The proposed increase of car parking provision in the IP-One area is inconsistent with encouraging walking/cycling/public transport use and reopening of Bury Road. The need for additional IP-One parking is also questioned as it seems capacity is not reached currently.
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
DELETE PARAGRAPHS 3.1 - 3.3 AND TEXT BOX
Representation ID: 777
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The revised CS should explain why IBC no longer believes in a jobs-led strategy. We argue that for sustainable development jobs and housing growth must be in balance and located in close proximity with good sustainable transport links. Neither more unemployed residents or residents working outside the borough is considered to be sustainable. A housing-led strategy means the proposed Garden Suburb with new jobs in the town centre reached by bus, bike or on foot is no longer sustainable and so the CS is unsound
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
5.5
Representation ID: 778
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We disagree that Ipswich residents possess a wide range of skills as elsewhere the CS acknowledges low skills and educational achievement in the workforce as identified in the Suffolk Growth Strategy.
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
5.8
Representation ID: 779
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Given the number of club, pub and bar closures it is not accepted that Ipswich has a strong night time economy, certainly not when compared with Norwich and Cambridge. The CS and IBC Economic Development Strategy Implementation Plan should support the night time economy further. Whilst the Waterfront night time economy has generally been a success this has been partly at the expense of the historic town centre.
see attached
Object
Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review
5.9
Representation ID: 780
Received: 10/03/2014
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We do not agree that Ipswich has strong transport links the evidence being lobbying of Government to improve the local rail network and journey times to London and increasing congestion on the A12 and A14 and recognition of need for improvements in the Suffolk Growth Strategy. The CS should acknowledge this too. Within the town there are concerns that the Travel Ipswich Scheme has not slowed traffic down and the CS should reflect this view and doubts over whether traffic lights should replace roundabouts. Increased housing will only increase congestion.
see attached