Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Object

Representation ID: 870

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

DM4 bullet a. SUDs may not just affect the immediate area but through draining into watercourses and rivers contribute to the flood risks elsewhere. Although not linked to SUDs we are currently witnessing severe flooding in the Thames Valley and the Somerset Levels due to unusual rainfall falling elsewhere. We suggest a minor amendment to read "it does not increase the overall risk of all forms of flooding in the area or elsewhere".

Object

Representation ID: 871

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 9.161 fourth bullet We recommend that the land set aside for SUDs is not included in the calculation of housing density for a development.

Object

Representation ID: 872

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

Paragraph 10.4 Please refer to our earlier comment in relation to the Ipswich Policy Area board and the need for better working with neighbouring local authorities in relation to the creation of new jobs and the location of new homes near to the sites of those new jobs.

Object

Representation ID: 873

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 8A does not refer to rail infrastructure enhancements mentioned in the NALEP 2014 Strategic Economic Plan specifically the Great Eastern Main Line, Felixstowe - Nuneaton freight line and Felixstowe to Ipswich Branch Line.

Object

Representation ID: 874

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 inclusion of Table 8B, but have a number of concerns. Provision of the country park and associated facilities must be included; traffic management scheme for Westerfield should also reference Whitton and The Dales; enhancements to school playing fields should include the agreement of an access plan to enable community use of facilities; Travel Plans should be required to include the commute from the Northern Fringe to new jobs within Ipswich Policy Area. Need to ensure infrastructure provision is not prevented by triggers not being reached e.g. rail crossings, schools, sewerage, especially in the light of multiple starts/cumulative development.

Object

Representation ID: 875

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 12.1 We would like it to be clarified that the monitoring of jobs delivery within Ipswich Borough, not just the Ipswich Policy Area, will be undertaken. We have seen no evidence of monitoring of the "Delivery of jobs within the Ipswich Policy Area" despite several requests for data. The monitoring of jobs data should specifically identify the net new jobs created in Ipswich Borough and in the central Ipswich "IP-One" area.

Object

Representation ID: 876

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

Objective 3 Please see earlier comments regarding homes and jobs targets. "Up to 12,500 additional jobs shall be provided" could mean anything between 1 and 12,499 and needs to be revised to a specific target for Ipswich Borough if it is to drive forward job creation. Part of the solution to providing "a decent home for everyone" is upgrading the existing housing stock yet the CSFR fails to address it. We also disagree with the removal of the target for the use of Previously Developed Land and suggest one or a number of time related targets are reinserted.

Object

Representation ID: 877

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 agree with the objective, however, this will not be the case for the creation of new jobs with principal growth areas being identified outside the town centre nor for housing development since the Northern Fringe development will inhibit this. The Target needs to relate to the land area of the development in order to deliver the objective rather than relating to the number of developments. If the largest developments are outside Central Ipswich then the Target could be met without delivering the Objective, which is unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 878

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 is out of date regarding the Major Scheme references - does IBC still report on these national indicators? The objective needs to improve sustainable transport from homes to new centres of major employment with an appropriate target.

Object

Representation ID: 879

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 include a target to improve educational attainment levels in order to help increase the skills base of future employees.