Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Object

Representation ID: 791

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst supporting jobs growth through the Economic Development Implementation Plan, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Growth Strategy, we notice that central Ipswich is not included as a principal location for it; within Ipswich, only the A14/Ravenswood/Futura Park/Ransomes Europark site which is not easily accessible from the proposed Garden Suburb by public transport or other sustainable transport means is mentioned. The Suffolk Growth Strategy identified Finance/Insurance as a growth industry for Ipswich and this should be mentioned in the CS even though the predicted growth for 2011-2031 from EEFM 2013 data is only 428 jobs (7%)

Object

Representation ID: 792

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

bullet iii Allocates the entire Ipswich Northern Fringe for development and our comments regarding page 22 also apply here. Urban regeneration and improving more deprived areas will be facilitated by limiting development on the Northern Fringe during the early years of the CS. Whilst we welcome the Governments recent announcement to offer incentives for the development of brownfield sites, we believe some form of restriction should be retained to help achieve regeneration/deprivation and sustainability objectives (i.e. Section 8.6).

Object

Representation ID: 793

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In order to be sustainable and be a "comprehensive approach" as stated, Policy CS1 should also include an objective to reduce carbon emissions from travel in Ipswich. Although, we note that travel is addressed elsewhere in the CS, this is a glaring omission and without this Policy CS1 is clearly not "comprehensive" and is therefore unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 794

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although the CS mentions issues with water supply and sewage in Ipswich it fails to address these, focussing only on SUDs for managing water run-off. Fresh water and sewage infrastructure should be included since both have previously been identified by the Haven Gateway Water Cycle Study as key issues for Ipswich and mentioned in the NALEP 2014 Strategic Economic Plan. Paragraph 6.92 of the latter confirms that the scale and cost of major new connections in relation to water supply and wastewater infrastructure (including treatment plant), is inhibiting the progress of some strategic Ipswich sites.

Object

Representation ID: 844

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

CS2/8.27: We agree that easy access to jobs, goods and services by sustainable modes is important for sustainability. The Northern Fringe is not located within easy access of new centres of employment. Residents will need to commute to employment outside the Borough or across town, as there is no direct public transport available and it is too far for most to walk or cycle. Multi-site development of the entire Northern Fringe from the outset will undermine urban regeneration efforts. CS2 directs major new retail development to the Central Shopping Area but the only development has been at Futura Park.

Object

Representation ID: 845

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The CS will fail to achieve the CS2 objective of urban regeneration, as residential developers will now focus on easier development at the Northern Fringe, as multi-site development is allowed from the outset. New office and retail facilities will also favour out of town locations as at Futura Park/Ransomes. These sites have been identified as major areas for the creation of new jobs in Suffolk Growth Strategy, unlike Ipswich town centre. However we support IBCs intentions to develop and regenerate the town centre and to attract new employment opportunities as indicated in the IBC Economic Development Strategy Implementation Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 846

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Page 36 Para 8.40 bullet b Policy CS3 We object to the deletion of the text from "b. Allocate sites for development in IP-One DELETED: including land to provide approximately 2,000 dwellings;" as this further reduces the commitment to building new homes in IP-One. We believe a target should be reinstated and that this should then be designated a priority to help regeneration.

Object

Representation ID: 847

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Locating new homes in Ipswich without new jobs for residents within the Borough or near to new sites of employment will breach Policy CS5 (which we support). Locating 3,500 new homes on the Northern Fringe will force people to commute to centres of new employment. As there are no existing or proposed direct bus routes this will mean they will travel by car. This is clearly not sustainable and in breach of Policy CS5. Therefore the CS is currently unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 848

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Para 8.65 We support well-designed efforts to reduce congestion in Ipswich but note that the Travel Ipswich scheme has yet to demonstrate that it will work. Although the system is not yet fully implemented residents have major concerns especially as the traffic lights are slowing down traffic flows. The CS should commit to no further works, especially the replacement of roundabouts with traffic lights, until the system has demonstrated its effectiveness.

Object

Representation ID: 849

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The IPA Board should be an important body, given the duty to cooperate, and it should meet more frequently than once a year. Greater co-operation and working together between authorities is required to identify and deliver the best employment and housing sites across the area - joint plans may be appropriate. This should have happened before this consultation on the CS. To be sustainable the location of new homes must be near to the location of new jobs. The CS6 policy and text need to commit to closer working with neighbouring authorities e.g. to align jobs forecasts.