Object

Representation ID: 808

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Table 3.1 Detailed comments on policies also need to be considered in the SA. The Table should assess changes to CS9. CS7 The most recent data should be used, and reliance on windfalls and neighbouring Local Authorities noted. CS10 The negative implications on brownfield development should be considered and wording on phasing looked at. CS13 Hyder should require that latest EEFM 2013 data are used, and assess growth areas relative to EEFM/NALEP strategic economic plan/Suffolk Growth Strategy. CS14 The SA should take better account of Ipswich Central's views on the Retail sector. CS17 Should check for and eliminate unintended consequences.

Object

Representation ID: 809

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Table 4-1 The wider implications of the change to CS9 [brownfield target] needs to be considered alongside the options for keeping a target at a reduced level.

Object

Representation ID: 810

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Paragraph 4.3.4 The SA needs to recognise that the CS needs to be better balanced to improve the lives of existing residents though redeveloping poor housing stock, tackling deprivation, reducing crime, improving health, getting people off benefits and back to work. The SA focuses too much on the advantages of new homes to the new residents and the averaging effect of these developments across Ipswich rather than on existing residents in existing wards who will remain disadvantaged and in need.

Object

Representation ID: 811

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Paragraph 4.3.5 The policies do not consider the likely location of new homes to new employment sites, or that new residents in Ipswich Borough will have to commute outside of the Borough to new sites of employment. The policies do not consider the implication of having insufficient jobs to match the number of new residents looking for employment.

Object

Representation ID: 812

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Paragraph 4.3.7 We are pleased that Hyder finally recognises the travel implications in relation to housing development of the Northern Fringe. However, this needs to be better reflected throughout its assessments.

Object

Representation ID: 813

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Paragraph 4.3.10 The following recommendations are required: most recent population and employment data should be used and forecasts should be made across district boundaries; a firm jobs growth target will help focus delivery; a better balance between new jobs and homes is needed with homes built near jobs; less reliance on retail growth and better alignment with NALEP growth sectors; a PDL target should be reintroduced; CS10 and Table 8B should be revised to remove risk of unintended consequences; water supply and sewerage should be addressed; and more should be done to improve the lives of existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 814

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Table 4-2 The SA needs to recognise that the plan does little to improve educational standards in existing schools; little to tackle crime in existing wards, while promoting homes without jobs; little to improve health especially for those in poor housing stock; and nothing to redevelop/improve existing sub-standard housing. It uses obsolete jobs data and forecasts far exceed historic provision. Impacts on climate change will be negative and the potential sewage issues associated with growth have not been addressed. These omissions need to be rectified as a key objective.

Object

Representation ID: 815

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Appendix E and Appendix F As the jobs and homes data used in the Core Strategy is obsolete, we have deferred commenting on the specific Impact Assessments until more recent data is utilised.

Object

Representation ID: 816

Received: 12/06/2014

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

There are inconsistencies in the CS car parking policy and ambiguity in relation to the Bury Rd Park and Ride which the Site Allocations DPD assumes will be reopened and enlarged whilst the CS deletes the reference to a new park and ride (Page 74). The proposals for IP-One expand existing car park capacity but it is rarely insufficient to meet demand. This is also inconsistent with the aim for more people to walk and cycle and the reopening/extension of Bury Rd Park and Ride as indicated in the Site Allocations DPD. The SA needs to consider these issues accordingly.