Object

Representation ID: 850

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 modelling is flawed because: the data is not up to date (e.g. EEFM 2013 run should have been used); DCLG's 2011 household projections were not considered; Ipswich household data is at odds with the Census figure; household growth is out of balance with jobs; travel to work data has not been used. EEFM forecasts jobs growth to 2031 9 times faster than took place 1991-2011 which calls the forecasts into question. More care is needed in interpreting forecasts, and longer term trends should be looked at. Thus the population and household targets need revision.

Object

Representation ID: 851

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 8.86 and Table 3: We note that the housing growth target of at least 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.

Object

Representation ID: 852

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

Object to removal of the PDL target. Allowing multi-site development across the entire Northern Fringe and removing the PDL target will result in new homes built on greenfield land at the Northern Fringe as it will be cheaper and easier for developers to do so compared with brownfield land. This will limit the regeneration of the town, especially the town centre, which is undesirable. We suggest a target/a small number of time dependent targets for PDL reinstated to ensure regeneration sites are prioritised over greenfield sites. We fail to see how the current Policy will "focus development on PDL first".

Object

Representation ID: 853

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 8.108 Parts of the Waterfront regeneration have indeed been successful but in its entirety the regeneration of the Waterfront cannot yet be described as successful as there are large derelict buildings and half-finished buildings that are a major eyesore and subject to anti-social behaviour (please see our comment on Paragraph 5.12). We welcome the Council's initiative to set up a steering group to tidy up the sites in preparation for investment options.

Object

Representation ID: 854

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 8.109 Whilst we acknowledge the Ipswich Northern Fringe is the last remaining greenfield site within the Borough boundary that could support major housing development it is not well connected to sites of expected employment growth. IBC should have proactively explored with its neighbouring Local Authorities alternative more sustainable solutions.

Object

Representation ID: 855

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

Strongly object to multiple starts, which will work against policies CS2 and CS3 by undermining urban regeneration. Unintended consequences could include increased disturbance to residents over a longer period and piecemeal development which lacks coordinated bus routes. Mechanisms for controlling these risks e.g. development sequencing should be included in the CSFR and developers should be limited to operating one site at any one time. Pitch provision should be reassessed and a specific area allocated. Bullet b object to 'amplify' as its meaning is not clear. Bullet d. should specify the sequencing of housing and infrastructure delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 856

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 8.111 We note and support this intention but would point out that if this had happened earlier more sustainable solutions may have been agreed in preference to developing the Ipswich Northern Fringe, closer to employment growth sites and on lower grade agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 857

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 8.138 This should specifically mention the jobs target for Ipswich as well as the reference to Ipswich Policy area as this is the main focus of the Core Strategy in relation to work.

Object

Representation ID: 858

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 "wider Ipswich Area" needs to be defined to avoid confusion. It is essential that "housing growth in Ipswich is matched by employment growth". We strongly object to this proposed change and deletion of the words 'The town cannot support a growing population without commensurate change in the level of accessible jobs provision.' We support the decision to focus on the delivery of jobs within the Borough rather than the Ipswich Policy Area. However, we would like to see a firm jobs target for clarity. For instance, would a shortfall of 5, 10 or 20% be considered a success?

Object

Representation ID: 859

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 8.143 We welcome that IBC is aiming to align its jobs growth strategy to the Suffolk Growth Strategy. This paragraph should also mention alignment with the New Anglia LEP Strategic Economic Plan and European Investment Strategy and also the recently Government approved Greater Ipswich City Deal.