Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Object

Representation ID: 860

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

Table 5 should include the latest jobs growth estimates from 2011 to 2031. These differ from the 2012 EEFM data. In particular, the 2013 EEFM forecast for new retail jobs in 2031 is over twice the 2012 forecast. Such differences illustrate the degree of caution that needs to be placed on such long range forecasts. The EEFM employment estimates are derived from the 'Business Register and Employment Survey' which is survey data. Longer term historic growth trends for job creation need to be better considered when assessing future growth scenarios as these smooth out the effects of "boom and bust".

Object

Representation ID: 861

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

Although we believe it right for IBC to support the growth sectors identified in both the Suffolk Growth Strategy and the NALEP 2014 Strategic Economic Plan it is also vitally important to focus on the top growth sectors identified for Ipswich, which are different. This needs to be made clear in the Core Strategy to ensure it gets translated into both the Ipswich Economic Strategy and the Ipswich Economic Development Strategy Implementation Plan. The key sectors that appear not to be adequately reflected in the latter are: Business Services, Professional & Technical Services and Health & Care.

Object

Representation ID: 862

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

We are disappointed that the town centre has not been identified through Suffolk Growth Strategy since there is a pressing need for regeneration and jobs growth in the town centre. In view of the local expertise in Insurance, far more needs to be done to attract investment and new jobs into Ipswich town centre. We suggest this sector be given a greater priority by IBC and note that it is given a mention in the Suffolk Growth Strategy. None of the growth sites identified are easily accessible from the Northern Fringe by public transport hence traffic congestion will arise.

Object

Representation ID: 863

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

Ipswich is not "relatively isolated from competing (shopping) centres" as the Council states Ipswich has excellent transport links. There are a number of shopping destinations generally considered better than Ipswich that are easy to access such as Cambridge and Norwich as well as Westfield (Stratford), Lakeside and of course London. Smaller centres with more upmarket shopping are available at Bury St Edmunds, Woodbridge and Aldeburgh. As stated in Para 8.157 there is no room for complacency.

Object

Representation ID: 864

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

This should also specifically state that 6th form provision is required at the secondary school to be provided at the Northern Fringe.

Object

Representation ID: 865

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

Support the commitment to 'Improving the retail offer in Ipswich' especially as the EEFM August 2013 identifies the retail sector as the highest jobs growth sector in Ipswich 2011-2031. However, we are concerned that the CS position bucks the national trend regarding retail. Retail development at Westgate seems unlikely given the number of high profile withdrawals from Ipswich, the shift to online retailing and the failure to secure retail redevelopment of Cox Lane. A 47% increase in retail jobs in Ipswich is unachievable and should be reviewed. The Council should consider more seriously the published views of Ipswich Central.

Object

Representation ID: 866

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

Fresh water and sewerage infrastructure should be included in the "Key strategic infrastructure requirements" 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. The latter also identifies rail and road infrastructure improvements key to growth and prosperity which should be mentioned: A14/J57 Nacton £20M, A14/A12 J58 Ipswich Seven Hills Roundabout £10M and A14/A12 J55 Copdock major project £100M; better rolling stock and faster journey times on the Great Eastern Main Line; Felixstowe-Nuneaton electrification, Felixstowe branch line and the Ipswich Northern Fringe Bridge.

Support

Representation ID: 867

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Para 8.240 We note and support that 'The Council will work with neighbouring authorities and Suffolk County Council to ensure that the merits and delivery options for some form of northern bypass are fully investigated.'

Object

Representation ID: 868

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

We feel that where car parking space is provided in the rear garden this space should be in addition to the minimum referred to.

Object

Representation ID: 869

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

Should clearly state that air quality is worsening in Ipswich and that further AQMAs are currently being defined. Pedestrians and cyclists will not want to walk/cycle through AQMAs alongside queuing traffic as this will damage their health therefore undermining sustainable travel options. Unless this fact is recognised the CS will not sufficiently address this major issue. Ipswich's air quality needs to be assessed in the context of DIRECTIVE 2008/50/EC 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. The CS and SA must take account of the annual Progress Reports in relation to compliance with this Directive.