Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Object

Representation ID: 818

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Changes made to CS10 such as allowing multiple starts across the Northern Fringe could have unintended consequences, e.g. leading to pressure on Red House before constraints have been resolved. Save our Country Spaces has major concerns about the changes to policy CS10 and supports the Northern Fringe Protection Group's detailed analysis and comments. CS10 is non compliant with the NPPF, as it fails to build a strong, competitive economy, promote healthy communities or conserve the natural environment.

Object

Representation ID: 819

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Save our Country Spaces has major concerns about the changes to policy CS7 and supports the Northern Fringe Protection Group's detailed analysis and comments.

Object

Representation ID: 820

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Save our Country Spaces has major concerns about the changes to policy CS13 and supports the Northern Fringe Protection Group's detailed analysis and comments.

Object

Representation ID: 821

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Save our Country Spaces has major concerns about the changes to policy CS17 and supports the Northern Fringe Protection Group's detailed analysis and comments.

Object

Representation ID: 822

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Revised policy CS10 fails to refer to responsibilities for the on going maintenance, liability and on going costs of key infrastructure e.g. the Country park, SUDS swales, and sports facilities. The new policy direction for management arrangements over such a large and complex site must be contained within the Core Strategy so they can be examined for soundness, safety, efficacy and sustainability. It could impact on viability and deliverability.

Object

Representation ID: 823

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The allocation of the sports park at Tuddenham Road before it has gone through due process is prejudicial and predetermination. There are environmental, safety and access concerns and there are already numerous sports facilities in the vicinity. There are already illegal land uses along Tuddenham Road which IBC has not dealt with.

Object

Representation ID: 824

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The revised policies map contains anomalies and certain presumptions on land use, access, land availability and deliverability. The map contains erroneous assumptions which appear unsound. Also, the location of the secondary school should be reconsidered on environmental, sustainability and practical grounds.

Object

Representation ID: 825

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The perceived requirement to ensure a five year housing land supply should not dictate multiple starts - this is the tail wagging the dog. It is implicit in the NPPF that factors should be balanced regarding sustainable growth in the economy, and adverse impacts on the local environment and population. SOCS consider that 'sustainable growth' is an oxymoron as adverse impacts will undoubtedly occur in the short and long term on existing residents' quality of life.

Object

Representation ID: 826

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The evidence base is contested e.g. the modelling and projections of jobs and population. It is too imprecise. There is bias in timescales chosen and methodologies used resulting in too much uncertainty. Previous projections and estimates have not been realised. Ipswich has lost its manufacturing base and opportunities such as Snoasis have not materialised. Projections and estimates which have failed to stand the test of time are responsible for high youth unemployment and low educational achievement. Thus Ipswich has a low skilled and low wage economy.

Object

Representation ID: 827

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is a deficit of employment sites in north and north east Ipswich. The triangle of existing employment areas links Ransomes, the former sugar beet factory, Whitehouse and the town centre. The Core Strategy does not consider alternative employment land allocations at the Northern Fringe. The area will lose jobs related to agriculture without replacing with permanent numbers of alternatives. With home ownership at its lowest level since 1987 who will buy the homes anyway?