Object

Representation ID: 781

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The table suggests IBC employment growth figures are unrealistic, whilst population has increased numbers in employment have fallen showing over reliance on national based models without consideration of local issues. Latest data (NOMIS Oct12-Sep13 and EEFM August 2013) should be included. CS also needs to recognise fall in average salaries. The table does not show all deleted text relating to "Top Employment Sectors" and deletion of Map 2 has not been highlighted.

Object

Representation ID: 782

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are concerned that expansion of UCS is slowing and cuts in staff are to be made and whilst welcoming initiatives that have been made suggest more support is required for UCS in the light of a drop in employment in education figures in the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 783

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The CS needs to acknowledge the major issue of deprivation and fails to consider the implications of a shift to a housing-led not employment-led strategy and more people chasing fewer jobs on lower salaries resulting in deprivation, CS needs to focus on getting people into work. The Peace Index shows Ipswich shows Ipswich as one of the worst rated locations in Eastern England and this is linked to levels of income, employment, health, education and housing.

Object

Representation ID: 784

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This fails to mention what growth is taking place. Over the past decade we have seen housing growth and population growth without jobs growth. The CS needs to clarify that there is 'forecast growth' in both the population and the economy and not treat this as an undisputed fact.
Although we appreciate that IBC is not the Education Authority, the CS needs to recognise the relative poor performance of some Ipswich schools in the league tables in order to help raise standards.

Object

Representation ID: 785

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 CS car parking policy, whilst the site allocations DPD assumes Bury Road Park & Ride will reopen the CS deletes reference to new Park & Ride. Whilst IP-One proposals expand car parking capacity this is inconsistent with more, walking/cycling/bussing/P&R and the need is queried also. Access and cost are the issues for car parking. A review of car parking is needed, we believe surplus long term parking could become short-term. Increased parking must be assessed in terms of impact on air quality also. CS and site allocations DPD must be consistent towards P&R.

Object

Representation ID: 786

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

13550 new houses is unachievable within the Borough and relies on windfalls and neighbouring authorities. Population and household forecasts should be revised in the light of DCLG 2011 data and latest ONS and EEFM data using 2011 census. Trend migration data is flawed, migrants are attracted to higher wage areas with jobs, unlike Ipswich. The loss of the target for development of previously developed land will result in greenfield development and failure to regenerate deprived areas. 'Larger' sites should be defined. We favour a specific minimum new jobs target based on newer data e.g. from 2011 census

Object

Representation ID: 787

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Agree with the objective but note that the largest area of development is in fact the Ipswich Northern Fringe and this is outside the IP-One area. This needs to be corrected.

Object

Representation ID: 788

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We support this approach but unfortunately the CS will not deliver these aims. By allowing multiple starts across the entire Northern Fringe for housing development and removing the target to develop brownfield sites there will be a major detrimental impact on regeneration of brownfield sites in deprived areas. Developers will focus on new housing on greenfield sites as it is cheaper and easier for them to do so. Clearly the priority should be to develop brownfield sites, especially those in more deprived areas, which is a far more sustainable approach. As drafted the CS will fail to regenerate such areas.

Object

Representation ID: 789

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We support this approach but unfortunately the CS will not deliver these aims. By allowing multiple starts across the entire Northern Fringe for housing development and removing the target to develop brownfield sites there will be a major detrimental impact on regeneration of brownfield sites in deprived areas. Developers will focus on new housing on greenfield sites as it is cheaper and easier for them to do so. Clearly the priority should be to develop brownfield sites, especially those in more deprived areas, which is a far more sustainable approach. As drafted the CS will fail to regenerate such areas.

Object

Representation ID: 790

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We agree that the Central shopping area boundary should be redefined for example to extend to the Waterfront but also believe that other rundown parts of the Central shopping area can be regenerated far better through the provision of new homes. We question the demand/need for a new Westgate shopping centre.