Appendix 2 – External Consultation Feedback · 2013-03-12 · Appendix 2 – External Consultation Feedback Respondent Feedback Amendment Suffolk New College Requested specifics

Appendix 2 – External Consultation Feedback

Respondent Feedback Amendment

Suffolk New

College

Requested specifics around how 18,000 jobs figure will be achieved, specifically referencing how UCS

will be developed and how EDF's project will impact on the economic development of Ipswich. Amend

name of College - typo p15. SNC is a 'provider of post 16 education' (Not FE college or sixth form) - p15.

Shelleys not a 'canteen restaurant' amend text.

Jobs figure currently being

reviewed and assessed by

planning team, and may be

adjusted at regular periods

of review, scheduled to occur

every 6 months - all other

minor amendments have

been made

Foundation

East

Please add to list of key partners Done

Ipswich

Central

Change reference to 'Visit Ipswich' to 'All About Ipswich on page 24, see email from Max Stocker Done

Menta Some of the language referencing specific organisations should be more general and top level. Some of

the language - in particular that referencing the Waterfront is too negative, needs to talk about the

positive outcomes once redevelopment gets underway again. Some of the language is too Council

focused - e.g. 'public realm', could be amended to something like 'improvements to the pavements and

trees in public spaces'. Suggestion to add an ambition to invest more money in improving the road

approaches to Ipswich, for example, Wherstead Road, Norwich Road, etc. Broadly refresh some of the

language, so that it is more active and positive rather than passive. Consider a diagrammatic

representation of the implementation plan.

Language has been amended

where feasible, specifically -

have changed the description

of public realm and made

references to the waterfront

more positive. Feedback

relating to entrances has

been considered, and this

issue is felt to be adequately

covered in other Council

plans.

Suffolk

Coastal

District

Council

Expressed some disappointment at not being involved in formative stages of the Economic

Development Strategy

Noted, awaiting feedback on

implementation plan

Suffolk

County

Council

SECTION 3 – “Vision” - outlines a vision for the economic development of Ipswich, including 3 core aims.

Do you agree with their overall vision and the associated core aims?The vision mentions being a ‘centre

of excellence for education’ and ‘business investment’. Business investment is supported by the three

core aims – however it is not clear how these will relate to creating a centre of excellence for education.

The aims also do not explicitly reflect the vision’s focus on a sustainable and low carbon Ipswich and

there is currently little in the rest of the document that relates back to this.The three core aims are

clear. However the diagram included on P7 appears to suggest that housing, skills and transport, culture

and infrastructure are only dependant on/impact on ‘inward investment’. These areas will be affected

by and affect all three aims.

SECTION 4 – “Background and Strategic context” - do you agree that it accurately describes the wider

economic context?This appears to be quite a large part of the document and could be seen to be

dwelling on the negatives rather than promoting the town’s positives.The last paragraph on P10

mentions the government seeking to shift the overall balance of the economy between the proportion

of public and private sector employment in the UK. This seems to be at odds with the belief in the

strategy that the sector is stable and “The Council does not anticipate any large scale job cuts in this

sector”

Section 3 - 'Vision', these

concerns have been noted,

the Council anticipates that

the linkages between the ore

aims and the Vision

(including issues relating to

'greening' Ipswich will

become apparent in the

forthcoming implementation

plan, which will sit alongside

the strategy.

Section 4 - these comments

have been noted, and

relevant adjustments have

been made to change to

make the tone more positive

where feasible. The sentence

on p10 referring to the

rebalancing of the economy

has been adjusted.

Suffolk

County

Council

(cont..)

SECTION 5 – “Future Developments. Are there any significant, realistic investment and development

projects that we have overlooked?The recognition of Ipswich’s cultural offer is welcome and there is

reference in the strategy to the development of a cultural quarter that incorporates Ipswich Museum.

This could be enhanced by

• Showing recognition in the document that the collections are of regional and national significance

• Referring to the role of the development of this area being important to help the N-S linkages of the

town (Town Plan) It may be worth noting that Ipswich welcomes a potential opportunity for further

investment in culture, heritage and learning by the possible new build of a county Heritage Centre that

will incorporate the Suffolk Record office and others.

SECTION 6 – “Economic profile and key sectors” – Does this section accurately reflect the significance

and potential of specific sectors in the Ipswich economy

Section 5 - these comments

have been noted. There have

been several adjustments to

make it even more apparent

as to the significance of the

cultural sector in Ipswich,

though it is felt premature to

include specific mention of

the Heritage Centre in this

document - as mentioned

earlier he strategy will be

regularly reviewed and any

relevant developments can

be included. The Council

feels

Section 6 is accurate - unlike

the 2011 Local Economic

Assessment, which did not

list Financial Services as a

headline sector, we welcome

this sector's inclusion in the

recent Growth Strategy.

Suffolk

County

Council

(cont…)

In addition, Ipswich’s strengths in the finance and insurance sector should be recognised as an inward

investment and business growth opportunity.Are there any additional comments or points we would

like to raise that have not been covered?The action plan (section 8) does not refer to supporting the

development of the Cultural Quarter – only a website for Visit Ipswich. The role of culture and the

visitor economy in the economy of Ipswich needs to be highlighted further both as a generator of jobs

and investment. For example, Dance East, hotel developments in the town and the various cultural

festivals. These are also a key part of the inward investment offer when attracting companies and

higher earning employees to the town.

In terms of the inward

investment opportunities

associated with the financial

sector the Council agrees,

and is hopeful that through

our implementation

consultation the County and

UCS will provide further

details on their initial

proposal they made some 6

months ago regards

establishing a financial

services centre of excellence

in Ipswich.

University

Campus

Suffolk

I have had a chance to read through the strategy now – given my expertise and focus is tourism and

heritage/culture, I concentrated on aspects of this within the strategy.

It all looks eminently sensible and realistic. As the new head of division in the business school (for

tourism, events, heritage, hospitality) we are committed to working with IBC on tourism development

on a number of fronts, and indeed had a meeting with Max Stocker and David Stainer yesterday about

some initial ideas. The main strategic action coming from this is to scope a ‘working plan’ for UCS to

work more closely with IBC in the field of tourism and heritage development – allied to areas where we

can bring obvious added value, such as tourism research and statistics, education and employability via

our range of tourism and heritage courses; small-scale projects where students can work on live tourism

development issues; re-energising ideas on the waterfront tourist information centre etc.

Noted - the Council looks

forward to working with and

supporting UCS in developing

this sector in the coming

years.

Liberal

Democrats

(Cont….)

Page 7: Under AIMS 1. 2nd point the word 'seek' is used. This is meaningless. Do we 'aim to seek'? Why

not 'We will use local suppliers and workers wherever possible'. Or ideally something stronger...

AIMS 2: Where and how will IBC address the first bullet point on apprentices, volunteering and work

experience placements? AIMS 2, 2nd bullet point. How?

The diagram on page 7 needs extra annotation and doesn't seem to address the title of the diagram. It

looks like an organisation or relationship chart. It doesn't explain how IBC 'will support job creation in

the Ipswich Economy. Where are the actions or initiatives?

Page 8: Why £1.5m? was the figure just dreamt up? There is no evidence that any thought went into

how much was required to address the unidentified need(s) or any analysis of whether money spent by

the council, by 3rd parties etc would better drive the Council’s ambitions. Where's the analysis?

Page 7 reference to 'seek' -

this is a direct quotation

taken from 'Building A better

Ipswich’, clearly mentioned

in the preceding paragraph.

Aims 2 - The Council is

currently undertaking a

procurement exercise to

establish an apprenticeship

brokerage service in Ipswich,

and we continue (as

mentioned in several other

sections of the strategy) to

work with notable partners

on this issue.

The diagram’s intention is to

set out the relationships and

how they relate to one

another.

The Council will consider

options for renaming the

diagram. Regards the £1.5m,

this is the sum that is

potentially available; the

strategy is not the right

document to explain how

this figure was arrived at.

Page 9: What does the phrase in para.2 'period of uncertainty of a minimum of the next three years

actually mean? Page 11/ Para 2. Under Investor Confidence. The Rail Chord hasn't been built yet and

will only improve movement to one port and will enhance capacity for passenger trains too.

Page 13: Future development (as per much of the document) is short term. Where are the plans for a

document purporting to cover 2012-2026?

Regards the 'period of

uncertainty for the next

three years' - this is in line

with national forecasts.

In terms of empty shops, the

Council continues to run its

successful test trading

scheme and will consider

options to expand it, where

and if it is considered good

value for money.

Liberal

Democrats

(Cont…)

Page 14: TRANSPORT. The Rail Link between Felixstowe and Nuneaton. Some is being paid for and

provided by NR, some being paid for by The Port of Felixstowe (HPUK). Copdock. This has just been

upgraded and works very well. Why does it need upgrading again?

Page 16. Last para. Are insurance premiums really relevant to this document in the context given?

Page 17: You need to talk about the Ipswich Chord project and Felixstowe branch line dualling scheme

separately.

Page 19. CULTURE. I thought we wanted to be the leading arts and cultural destination in East Anglia?

Don't we anymore?

Reference to the rail chord

has been amended to more

clearly spell out that benefits

delivered by the rail chord

for Felixstowe are likely to be

felt in Ipswich given its

proximity, and the linkages

between the two towns.

Future developments to

2026, we are hopeful that

this section will be

developed through the

consultation with partners

on the implementation plan.

Noted

Noted

p19 noted, there is a great

deal in the document listing

and highlighting cultural

achievements.

Page 18. NALEP is not defined (unless I've missed it).> Page 19. ENERGY Not sure what we're getting at

here as the draft of Phase 3 wind farm construction vessels will not get down the 6.5m draft of the

Orwell thalweg. Unless wind turbines can be moved and therefore constructed here why would anyone

base a business here?

Page 23: Are we going to introduce SLA's in order to ensure us (and others) can measure action versus

promises?> Appendix 3. Much on short term. Very little detail at all beyond 2015!!! That’s only 2 and a

bit years away. How is this going to be addressed? A review each year? No detail much beyond two

years isn't enough.

P18 NALEP – noted.

Reference to potential

benefits of energy sector are

in terms of wider supply

chain benefits, again, may

need to be very clearly spelt

out so that people fully

grasp. In terms of SLAs,

again, not entirely clear what

is being referred to here, and

we hope that greater detail

regards longer term ambition

will develop through the

implementation plan

consultation.

Noted, the Council is hoping

to develop these aims

through the implementation

consultation exercise.

Ipswich

Town FC

Broadly supportive of a number of initiatives, but calling strongly for specific mention of the football

club's significance to the town in general and recognition of the club's potential for economic

development benefit.

Noted and additional

paragraphs have been

added.

Coes Call for a more 'joined up' approach across all local authority economic development & planning teams,

including boroughs/districts/County. Would like to see a greater emphasis on supporting mature as well

as developing sectors, and a greater commitment in the plan in terms of implementation - when/how

etc. Suggested a private/public body to oversee activity in terms of delivery.

Noted. To an extent this is

likely to come out in the

Suffolk growth Strategy, and

work undertaken by NALEP

to develop infrastructure and

wider economic

development plans. Similarly

under the new provision

regards business rate

retention this type of

working is more likely to

emerge, and may be

included in either the

implementation plan and as

a consequence of

subsequent regular reviews.

European

Futures

Organisation

The vision is bland and uninspiring, offering no compelling reason for business to invest in Ipswich.

More detailed economic futures modelling are needed, including impact of possible technological

advancement. Ipswich has the potential to develop 'high tech' clusters, little evidence of how this will be

accomplished in the strategy. There needs to be a greater focus on the future, and less content

describing the present and past. A 'stress test' should be applied to the 'single vision' for Ipswich to

assess its robustness, and in addition there should be the inclusion of multiple outcomes with

associated risk analyses. Object to the definition of 'corporate state' partners, and suggests instead

forming a network of 'achievers', with proven track record. Object to the apparent

encouragement/focus on low-paid, low skilled jobs - referencing development of tourism & hospitality

sector.

Noted. Given the resources

and funds that are available

to the Council, the scale of

what is being proposed here

in terms of modelling and

stress testing is not feasible

or realistic. The comments

regards development of the

tourism and hospitality

sector have been noted,

though the Council does not

agree with them.

Healthy

Ambitions

Requested greater mention regards the significance of health and well being in the strategy These comments were

noted. However, given that

the primary focus of the

document is on economic

development, it was felt that

the current content was

sufficient, though greater

detail would be considered if

and when it was made

apparent during the

implementation plan

consultation.

Evolution

Planning

Should include more on application of appropriate land for developing housing. More emphasis on the

significance of delivering the northern fringe.

Noted, though it is felt these

issues are sufficiently

covered in the LDF.

Haven

Gateway

Partnership

Overall, the strategy is a broad based and solid document covering all the areas I would have expected-

However, what for me is missing is any recognition of what the target of "at least 18,000 jobs by 2025"

means for the current period i.e. 2012 to 2025. In reality, the figures available from EEFM suggest that

the job growth since 2001 has been limited and hence there is real pressure to radically increase the

pace of job creation from now on. My analysis of the numbers suggests Ipswich (Borough not IPA for

which figures are not available) only grew by 1,600 in total between 2001 and 2011 so there is still a

need to generate perhaps 16,200 new jobs between 2012 and 2025 - an increase from 160 jobs pa to

perhaps 1,160 pa! This is a real step change to use that awful phrase - so for me there is a need to

convey a sense in which the actions proposed will help to achieve this- I also feel the strategy would be

more focussed in this regard if the scale of some of the interventions could be fleshed out so that their

contribution to this target is more apparent. Are they all going to be of equal significance in terms of job

numbers or is there a stand out opportunity here e.g. the growth of the financial services sector?- One

other thing that is perhaps missing from the discussion of growth sectors is any action to support supply

chains. The existence of a strong professional services base in the town is mentioned but I think supply

chain management is becoming seen as a very powerful means by which to drive competitiveness and

growth. The starting point is to identify the supply chain for each sector and then engage with it

These comments have been

noted, and as mentioned

earlier in the document the

Council's Planning team are

working on a review of the

projected jobs growth

figures, and this may be

reviewed at subsequent

reviews. In terms of

sharpening the focus on

specific job creation

potential, the Council is

hopeful this will become

more apparent through the

consultation on the

implementation plan.

Regards supply chain

development; we may need

to include an additional

element.

Haven

Gateway

Partnership

(Cont…)

I don't need to repeat this, but the document does keep referring to the IPA area and there is clearly

going to be a need from a Duty to Co-operate standpoint for there to be clear evidence that all the

various plans join up. Yours focussed growth on central Ipswich and does not really explain how in

economic development terms the fringe sites can be used to deliver growth in the key sectors- In terms

of workforce and the very good point made on page 21 about a qualified labour pool and the

production of people with digital gaming skills, I wonder whether some mention of "graduate retention"

or similar may be worthwhile. So often institutions produce such people but they are quickly tempted

away by better opportunities.

These need to be created locally- Last but not least a very small point indeed, the figure for office areas

on page 13 should be 12 m2 not 2 m2 I believe

The on-going negotiations

regards the possibly Ipswich

City Deal are likely to go

some way to addressing

these points.

The error regards the spatial

description has been

amended.

David Lau Focus on a couple of subject areas: 1. for UCS to become instantly recognisable and known for specific

subject areas. 2. Promote Spanish and Chinese as languages in local education and business

communities.

Noted, the first suggestion

we hope will be addressed

during the consultation on

the implementation plan,

while the second point may

also be covered - it may be

something we need to take

up as an economic

development team with

relevant contacts at UCS.

Babergh and

Mid Suffolk

District

Councils

This is a joint response on behalf of Mid Suffolk and Babergh District Councils.We have read and

considered the draft Ipswich Economic Development Strategy and have the following comments to

make:This is a positive, forward-looking document the purpose of which is clearly set out in the Preface

on page 6. The preface acknowledges “the aspirations of our economic development partners”,

explains that the Ipswich Policy Area has been used “as a base for the purposes of all population

calculations” that economic development priorities for Ipswich are within the context of the IPA’s

economic vision. Given that the IPA is the context for the economic geography of the Strategy we are

disappointed that neighbouring authorities that comprise the IPA, and which are where the Strategic

Development Sites listed and shown on the map in Appendix 6 are located, these are not listed or

referred to as partners on page 5 nor are they included in the “full list of identified partners” in

Appendix 2. (See comments on page 6 of the strategy below.)

Comments noted -

neighbouring authorities

now listed in the relevant

Appendix.

Babergh and

Mid Suffolk

District

Councils

Page 5: In view of the Ipswich Town Centre Masterplan referenced in the Introduction on page 4, the

importance of the retail sector to the town, and the growth in retail jobs mentioned on page 18, should

retail be included in the list of sectors with potential for growth and investment?

Page 6: Whilst the use of the wider Ipswich Policy Area (IPA) as the geographical basis of this strategy

makes sense if the Borough Council is working with its neighbouring local authority partners through

the IPA Board, the Haven Gateway, the Suffolk Growth Group and other informal officer groups, it does

seem vague and confusing as used in the draft strategy document. The Economic Development Strategy

does not exist in isolation – indeed, in the Introduction the documents says that it “complements the

LDF, Core Strategy” etc. The inclusion of key employment sites outside the IBC boundaries raises issues

around monitoring and double counting, and could lead to challenges from those that would wish to

stop or prevent development.

This comment has been

noted, and will be taken into

consideration.

Comments noted - and the

Strategy has been refined to

link more clearly to broader

initiatives - such as the

County Growth Strategy.

Babergh and

Mid Suffolk

District

Councils

(cont…)

It is also a potential weakness as it indicates that Ipswich is unable to reach many of its targets for both

population and economic growth without the co-operation and assistance of the other districts within

the IPA area – yet neither Babergh nor Mid Suffolk have been identified as Key Partners in Appendix 2

on page 29.

The document lacks a spatial dimension and context despite the maps in Appendices 5 and 6, which

weakens and undermines the comprehensive intention of basing the strategy on the Ipswich Policy

Area. Page 7

We note and support the vision for Ipswich and the 3 core aims to support this. However, the diagram

on page 7 seems to indicate that ‘Inward Investment’ channels ‘Skills & Education’, ‘Transport &

Infrastructure’, ‘Culture & Recreation’ plus Housing to lead directly to ‘Employment Opportunities’.

Our experience is that far more sustainable employment opportunities are created through nurturing

existing business growth.

Page10: The lack of references to the source of the charts and data quoted makes it difficult to examine

the evidence base of your strategic context, whilst there is a long list on page 38 of the references, it

would be useful to cross-reference those throughout the document.


noted, and will be

considered.

Regards the diagram - it does

specifically refer to existing

business growth.

In Ipswich we have

benefitted from both existing

growth (Willis, LV, Thompson

& Morgan) and external

boosts - Waitrose/John

Lewis/Next and hopefully

Vue cinema - hence we have

referred both.

This has been noted, and will

be taken into consideration

Babergh and

Mid Suffolk

District

Councils

(cont…)

Page 13: Through the A14 study group, it was agreed to adopt a standard format of calculating jobs

from employment land, which was the HCA 2010 Employment Density figures. Whilst the figures for

General industry and Warehouse agree, the strategy quotes the very high figure of 2 sqm per job for

offices rather than 12 sqm – is this a typo?

Page 15: Please note that Suffolk One is within Babergh district.

Page 16: The first paragraph is rather confusing. The public sector is identified as a stable sector within

the town. Despite central government cutbacks in public sector funding your strategy states that it

“does not anticipate any large scale job cuts in this sector”. The Cities Outlook 2012 report by The

Centre for Cities identifies Ipswich as having one of the lowest proportion of private sector to public

sector jobs (1.9) making them likely to be most affected by government cutbacks. Is the final sentence

of this paragraph meant to include all of the public sector, or is it referring to “the skills and education

elements of the public sector”?

Page 23: As the economic strategy encompasses the IPA area, will the Jobs & Skills Investment fund be

available to businesses within that area rather than IBC boundaries?

Action point 5.5 we welcome the chance to work with IBC to promote employment sites in the IPA and

would like to discuss exactly how this could be progressed.

Yes - it was a typo - it has

been corrected. Suffolk One

is in Babergh District Council

(as noted). Some of the other

phraseology has been

amended to reflect the

points made.

Noted, amendment made.

Noted, amendments made to

clarify that while reductions

in ‘core’ public are likely to

continue, skills and

education are likely to see

increases.

This will depend on the type

of initiatives undertaken

through the Jobs & Skills

Fund; the focus will remain

on Ipswich.

Noted.

Babergh and

Mid Suffolk

District

Councils

(cont…)

Page 28: Appendix 1 Please note that the part of Babergh district in the IPA are the parishes (not

electoral divisions) as listed, but including Belstead. The final sentence of the first paragraph would be

clearer if it stated that the population of the IPA exceeds 157,450. Similarly the final sentence of the

second paragraph would be better expressed as “The economy of the IPA supports a wider ….” If you

are using the IPA as the basis for the strategy this should be explicit in this section.

Neither Babergh or Mid Suffolk as partner authorities in the IPA have had an input into the “IPA

Economic Vision”. Whilst we agree in principal with the points noted it would carry more weight if it

was the expression of a shared vision developed by all partners. We would also like to see some

reference to the wider context, particularly the rest of Suffolk and the Haven Gateway.

Page 36: Appendix 6. Whilst this map identifies sites outside the IBC boundary which it wishes to

incorporate within its Economic Strategy, there is no breakdown of population, business growth,

housing or job targets that identify those of which are in the boundaries and control of IBC and those

which are outside its control. This is confusing and possibly misleading.

Noted, amendments made.

Noted, this will be taken into

consideration

Noted, this will be taken into

consideration

Babergh and

Mid Suffolk

District

Councils

(cont…)

A Suffolk wide Economic Development Strategy is currently being prepared and IBC strategy could be

seen as premature. Mid Suffolk and Babergh will be issuing a joint Economic Strategy after it has been

able to consider its role in delivering the Suffolk Economic Growth agenda.

We wish to make it clear that key sites such as the Sproughton Sugar Beet Factory and SnOasis will be

included in our Economic Development Strategy and district-wide targets. They are already

incorporated within the evidence base for the Core Strategies and LDF framework of each of our

authorities, and are in the Local Investment Plan.Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the

draft of your Economic Development Strategy. Both Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils are keen

to work in partnership with neighbouring authorities and positively demonstrate our commitment to

the duty to co-operate. We would welcome more opportunities to positively participate in the future.


noted, and the Council will

work closely with SCC and its

neighbouring authorities to

ensure all economic

strategies are broadly

supportive of one another.

Willis • I would love to see one single economic plan for Suffolk across all authorities. As we discussed before

the meeting I believe that by working together our overall success will be greater and I believe that an

Ipswich plan that is “complimentary” rather than “distinctive” or “separate” to the rest of the county

would achieve more. If that means that we need to extend the time it takes to finalise the Ipswich plan

then we should take that extra time.

• 18,000 additional jobs in 14 years is certainly ambitious and aspirational – I would love to know how

that number was arrived at? I think it represents an increase of c30% on the current workforce and

would require around 1,200 additional jobs per annum – what has been our track record over the past

14 years for creating jobs? The reason for asking is to ensure that a) the target is based on some data

points and b) is achievable, whilst being a stretch, as this would be the ultimate criteria against which

the success of the plan will be judged.

• My previous e-mail to Sally of 21st September asked whether this plan contains the necessary actions

required to improve Ipswich’s rating on the Huggins Competitiveness Survey (which I also referenced

last week at the marketing Ipswich session) – this is an external study and it would appear sensible that

the actions proposed by our town plan are the ones which would influence our competitiveness.

Ipswich Borough Council

started work on developing

this economic strategy in

2011/12. Suffolk County

Council and New Anglia LEP

started work and

consultation on their

respective economic

strategies in late 2012.

Ipswich Borough Council has

taken considerable effort to

ensure that this strategy is

broadly supportive and

complimentary to both

initiatives.

The 18,000 job creation

figure was based on a large

body and directly references

CS13 of the Council’s Core

Strategy.

Regards regular

competitiveness

benchmarking, the Council

currently monitors key

indicators through work

undertaken on a monthly

and annual basis for the

Centre for cities. This analysis

tracks a range of factors

which largely reflect those

included in the Huggins

• Lots of discussion last night about taking a more proactive approach to inward investment – the plan

currently adopts a passive approach. Again you heard me talk a lot about this last week and I believe

this is best achieved in a combined cross-stakeholder approach covering IBC, SCC, Ipswich Chamber,

Ipswich Central and NA LEP. This seems to be a key strand to the overall plan achieving its goal of

18,000 new jobs and I am not sure the current draft recognises this enough.

• Build upon your strengths – again to achieve the ambitious jobs growth target it would seem sensible

to be much more proactive in promoting our current “centres of excellence” rather than adopting the

“they will look after themselves” approach. It does not mean that we should overlook the new

potential growth areas, but it would be highly ambitious to believe that they will achieve the target

without a significant contribution from our existing strengths. Celebrating our “centres of excellence”

would also create a “herd” mentality which becomes somewhat self-fulfilling in much the way IT

companies cluster around Cambridge – it would also enable the education system to focus on the skills

required to support these strong areas.

• My final view is around the town centre and is perhaps contrary to the current “Portas” approach of

towns seeking to build their success around the retail offering. I am no retail expert at all, but I wonder

if we should take the view that we build a town centre around “compelling needs” to enter it. These

could be “employment” as we have now and perhaps other “services” which people then need to

access. I do not think towns like Ipswich will be successful in the first instance in pushing back the tide

of “out of town” shopping as evidenced by the John Lewis development plus Next at Martlesham.

However if we could increase the compelling needs for people to come into town then footfall will

increase which in turn would benefit/attract retailers even if on they are on a smaller scale.

survey.

The Council is working with

Suffolk County Council and

New Anglia LEP in developing

a more co-ordinated,

countywide inward

investment package.

In terms of creating centres

of excellence, the Council is

aiming for more detail to be

developed in the subsequent

implementation plan

consultation which will

accompany the strategy,

amendments to the strategy

have also be made to

emphasise the Council’s

support for continued

development of existing

strong sectors.

Regards the Council’s

approach to the town centre,

we have been awarded a

small sum as a result of our

application to the Portas

Pilot scheme, and the

Council has set out it’s vision

for the town centre in its

town centre master plan,

published spring 2012.

Ipswich &

Suffolk

Chamber of

Commerce

Centres of Excellence

One of the key aims in achieving projected jobs growth should be to build on Ipswich’s established

sector strengths and centres of excellence. Creating a focus on centres of excellence would also enable

the education sector to develop required skills in relation to specific sectors, e.g. UEA’s linking to the

science and health sectors and the world-leading Norwich Research Park. This would in turn support a

long term message to students, and increase our chances of retaining talent long-term and creating a

more aspirational/entrepreneurial environment.

Inward Investment

The Chamber of Commerce welcomes the establishment of the £1.5m Jobs & Skills Fund. However, the

Chamber cannot see a clear statement of how Ipswich Borough Council will proactively develop Inward

Investment. The Chamber of Commerce would like to see more explicit mention of who, how and why

the Council will target in terms of inward investment, and how this will tie in with various EU funding

streams. The potential for investment and growth in the education sector over the period of the

Strategy lies almost exclusively with UCS, which could benefit from further sustainable funding and

ownership of the economic strategy.

In terms of creating centres

of excellence, the Council is

aiming for more detail to be

developed in the subsequent

implementation plan

consultation which will

accompany the strategy,

amendments to the strategy

have also be made to

emphasise the Council’s

support for continued

development of existing

strong sectors.


Suffolk County Council and

New Anglia LEP in developing

a more co-ordinated,

countywide inward

investment package.

Infrastructure

With the planned growth of housing and jobs the current infrastructure needs to be reviewed. There

needs to be a more concerted effort to address the wider infrastructure particularly the A14 and rail

links alongside a more measured approach to manage the current investment in the town centre.

Again, the Council is working

closely with Suffolk County

Council and New Anglia LEP

on developing a county and

LEP wide infrastructure plan

that will highlight large scale

projects such improvements

to rail services and the A14.

Ipswich &

Suffolk

Chamber of

Commerce

Huggins Competitive Survey

Does the plan contain the necessary actions required to improve Ipswich’s rating on the Huggins

Competitive Survey? This is an external study and it would appear sensible that the actions proposed by

our town plan are the ones which would influence our competitiveness.

Retail Offering

The Chamber welcomes the tremendous push to bring retailers into the area in terms of enhancing the

overall shopping experience and options in the town. However, if we are to inspire our children (outside

of retail) with real business and career opportunities and retain our talent there will need to be

additional non-retail investment in the town.Perhaps and alternative to the Portas approach should be

adopted. If we could increase the compelling needs for people to come into town i.e. for work then

footfall will increase which in turn would benefit and attract retailers even if they are on a smaller scale.

Transparency of Facts

The Chamber of Commerce would like to see more transparency on facts. A system similar to the ‘Bury

Vision’ would be useful.

Regards regular

competitiveness

benchmarking , the Council

currently monitors key

indicators through work

undertaken on a monthly

and annual basis for the

Centre for cities. This analysis

tracks a range of factors

which largely reflect those

included in the Huggins

survey.

Regards the Council’s

approach to the town centre,

we have been awarded a

small sum as a result of our

application to the Portas

Pilot scheme, and the

Council has set out it’s vision

for the town centre in its

town centre master plan,

published spring 2012.

This suggestion has been

noted, and will be taken into

consideration for the

implementation consultation

and subsequent strategy

reviews.

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

Section 21 - ‘Vision’, outlines a vision for the economic development of Ipswich, including 3 core aims.

Do you agree with the overall vision and the associated core aims?

Disagree.

We support the general thrust of the vision and would like to see Ipswich as an attractive location for

investment in business and a centre of excellence for education. We support the aims of encouraging

the creation of sustainable jobs that will bring wealth and prosperity to Ipswich. However, in our view

the aims are currently insufficient to realise the vision and need to be strengthened considerably.

Furthermore, the vision for Ipswich is not clear in the context of the Ipswich Policy area and the

interplay between these two different areas is confusing. For example, there is no indication of the

number of jobs expected to be created in Ipswich Borough compared to elsewhere in the Ipswich Policy

Area. There are also no forecasts of when these jobs might be created. In order for the Ipswich

Economic Development Strategy to be effective, it must have data and targets that specifically relate to

Ipswich as well as those relating to the wider Ipswich policy area. Without specific employment

forecasts etc for Ipswich it will be impossible to optimise the Ipswich Economic Development Strategy

2012-26.

If you disagree please suggest alternative aims

We believe that there should be additional core aims for example that incorporate 1) Redeveloping

brownfield land 2) Improving transport links to and across Ipswich to help economic activity 3)

attracting better-paid professional jobs to Ipswich 4) Reducing the number of people on benefits and

the numbers of long-term employed.

New initiatives in addition to the two quoted will be required to realise the vision. It is disappointing

The Council is engaging with

key partners, including

significant education

institutions to further

develop an inward

investment strategy as part

of the Strategy’s



local authority partners in

the IPA, reviews,

clarifications and adjustment

so the projected jobs figures

will be made as part of the

regular review process of the

strategy.

As previously referred to,

much of this activity will be

addressed in the subsequent


1 We note that Section 2 in the document is entitled “Preface” and Section 3 contains “Vision”. This inconsistent numbering continues throughout the

questionnaire, which is unhelpful.

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

that the need for further new initiatives has not been included. IBC must plan, develop and implement

additional new initiatives and outline them in this section.

Do you agree that Section 3 - ‘Background & Strategic Context’, accurately describes the wider

economic context?

Disagree.

If you disagree, please include factors that you feel we should include or amend

We disagree that the Ipswich economy has coped comparatively well as shown in the graph on page 11.

This is more strongly illustrated by the net employment rate in Ipswich, which has fallen from 78.7%

(2007) to 69.2% (2011) compared to a fall from 74.8% to 73.5% in the East of England (State of Ipswich

Report 2012 – the source of other reported data in this section). Specific data on the long term job

trends in Ipswich should be included.

We also note that the State of Ipswich Report 2012 shows that Ipswich is comparatively more deprived

since 20072,which is worrying as deprivation has a strong link to household income and hence the local

economy. Those in receipt of Housing and/or Council Tax Benefit has also increased by 15% (2,355) over

the past 3 years and continues to steadily increase whilst there are now about 7,425 children growing in

households in Ipswich where no one works. We believe economic data on relative earnings, deprivation,

benefit dependency, long term unemployed etc should be included in the background.

We are concerned that IBC has chosen to gloss over this data and paints a false picture of the

performance of Ipswich during the economic downturn. Clearly Ipswich has performed comparatively

worse and we must face up to the current reality if Ipswich is to successfully move forward.

This section should also include data (and subsequent updates) from the paper presented at the IPA

Board on 13th December 2011 that contains employment forecasts, actual recent delivery and the

ingredients for achieving growth as well as the major opportunities and risks to growth in the area etc.

The Council’s presentation of

data is based on a range on

statistical data, not just the

State of Ipswich, although

this data has been

considered. The Council

believes that in comparison

to many other similar

locations in the UK – Ipswich

has coped comparatively

well, the East of England is

necessarily the most relevant

comparator for an urban

regional centre.

The Council recognises the

challenges that Ipswich faces

in terms of addressing

specific areas of deprivation,

and will continue to strive to

2 “The number of areas within the most deprived 20% of areas nationally has increased from 19 areas as recorded in the IMD 2007 to 21 areas in 2010. In

absolute terms, the number of people living within the most deprived 20% of areas has risen by 2.5% suggesting that Ipswich has become comparatively more

deprived since 2007.”

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

IBC has refused to release this data to the public on the grounds of "the public interest in withholding

the papers outweighing the public interest in releasing them". As IBC is now consulting the public on

this very issue, it is very clearly in the public interest to release this information in order for the public,

local business and other interested parties to participate in the consultation in a meaningful manner.

Are there any significant, realistic investment and development projects that we have overlooked in

Section 4 - ‘Future Developments’? If so, please provide details

We congratulate IBC and its partners in securing European funding for RECREATE and suggest it is

detailed here.

It is disappointing that IBC has neglected to identify those sites that have stalled developments nor

outlined how it plans to help progress these most notably the large Westgate and Mint Quarter sites in

the centre of town. IBC needs to include a clear economic development strategy for these sites covering

2012-26. It is also disappointing that the majority of new developments identified will not provide

better paid jobs in more professional sectors. IBC should not be asking for details of projects that it has

overlooked but should be proactively presenting its proposals here on how to stimulate the

development of existing brownfield sites.

All Council housing building should take place on brownfield sites to as part of integrated regeneration

projects that help deliver local jobs and apprenticeships.

Do you agree that Section 5 - ‘Economic Profile & Key Sectors’, accurately reflects the significance and

potential of specific sectors in the Ipswich economy?

Neither agree nor disagree as there is no quantitative data provided. Several aspects of this chapter

could readily be applied to other British towns and there is no specific assessment.

maximise to increase both

the overall and the higher

value employment

opportunities in the town,

again we are aiming to

include greater detail on

these in the implementation

plan.

Further details regards this

project will be covered in the


These town centre areas are

addressed in the Town

Centre Master plan, which

was published in Spring

2012.

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

If you disagree, please provide details of sectors and how the information should be amended

Sector-specific employment forecasts and potential for the period 2012-2026 should be included in this

chapter for both Ipswich and the Ipswich Policy Area. This will provide better insight and thereby help

optimise the Ipswich Economic Strategy 2012-2026.

The section on skills and education also needs to address schools in detail. The statement “The

provision of post GCSE education continues to improve in Ipswich” is misleading and needs to be

corrected. Ipswich Borough is a massive 15.1% (2011) below the national average for Key Stage 4

attainment (the two year education period that incorporates GCSEs), which is a substantial

deterioration from 4.4% below (2005) (State of Ipswich Report 2012). This low level of educational

attainment will detrimentally impact on the number of skilled jobs being created in the Borough and the

demand for new housing as people will prefer to send their children to schools outside of the Borough

and therefore people will not be attracted to live within the Borough. IBC cannot afford to ignore this

issue.

The section on potential funding streams needs to include European funding, e.g. through the European

Regional Development Fund, and other UK Government funding opportunities and/or related initiatives

such as the Green Deal and Technology Strategy Board Funding etc.

Noted, this may be

something we can consider

for the regular reviews of the

strategy.

Noted, the Council

acknowledges that there

needs to be a shared effort

across all partners to drive

attainment levels up, whilst

recognising that the County

Council has primary

responsibility for overseeing

attainment levels in state

schools. The reference in the

Strategy is focused on the

substantial investment that

has taken place at both

Suffolk New College and

Suffolk One (on the edge of

IBC boundary) in improving

the provision of opportunity

for post 16 education.

The Council will look to

address the potential of EU

funding streams as part of

the implementation plan

exercise.

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

Section 7 - ‘Implementation Plan’, identifies 11 Council led activities that will underpin the core aims

of the Economic Development Strategy. Do you broadly agree that the Council should focus efforts on

these activities?

Neither agree nor disagree.

The Implementation Plan appears to focus on the shorter term despite this being a strategy to 2026. As

currently drafted the document is actually a three year plan. In general the actions need to be

strengthened in many areas and there is a lack of detail on how the actions will be implemented. Many

actions are not time-bounded and should be accompanied by specific delivery deadlines.

We have the following comments on the current Action Points.

• Action Point 2. Should include reference to apprenticeships.

• Action Point 2. Action 1 – All new homes should be on brownfield sites as part of integrated

regeneration programmes that benefit local communities

• Action Point 3. This needs to be strengthened considerably through additional actions for

example support to mentoring networks and business advisory services.

• Action Point 5. Efforts need to be prioritised on Ipswich as this is the Ipswich Economic Strategy.

New jobs targets need to be set for Ipswich itself then monitored and reported on in order to

assess the success of the strategy and review it as required. The Council should detail how it will

monitor and report on the creation of new jobs in Ipswich.

• Action Point 5. Action 3 – the text is incomplete and needs to include reference to schools and

Suffolk County Council.

• Action Point 6. The statement “Where applicable, the Council will make every effort to identify

suitable sources of funding, as well as write and/or support funding applications.” needs to be

better defined.

• Action Point 6. The statement “The Council is committed to doing all it can to encourage stalled

development projects on waterfront and throughout the town to provide both employment and

housing (Investment)” would be better as an ongoing action. Specific details on how it will do

this need to be included. For example a specific action plan for each major site needs to be

developed and implemented this financial year.

• Action Point 6. Additional actions need to be included to strengthen this commitment. For

example, there is no reference to any outreach activity to businesses.

These points are noted, and

will be taken into

consideration as the Council

develops its’ implantation

plan.

• Action Point 7. The statement “the Council itself is committed to continuing to offer its own

apprenticeship programme to provide opportunities for young people in Ipswich (Start-up,

Survival, and Investment)” would be better as a continuing action. Reference to delivering

apprenticeships in relation to council house building needs to be included.

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

• Action Point 8. These actions need to be strengthened, for example there needs to be a

structured programme of NALEP outreach activity as opposed to ensuring a business conference

at some unspecified time during 2012-2026.

• Action Point 9. These actions need to be strengthened, for example by developing and

implementing an action plan to better integrate the town centre with the waterfront. The vision

plan developed under Action 3 must also be backed up by actions.

• Action Point 10. These actions need to be strengthened. For example the site needs to be

marketed and kept up to date.

• Action Point 11. These actions need to be taken further. For example a plan of activity needs to

be developed and agreed with UCS then jointly implemented. Yet again, there is also a need for

outreach activity.

• Action Point 12. These actions need to be strengthened and expanded to cover other UK and

European funding streams rather than focus on Growing Places and Ipswich rail station.

Are there additional actions you would like to see the Council take a lead on?

In our opinion the Council needs to include an additional action point that includes actions to help get

residents back into work, especially those in more deprived areas of Ipswich, young people and the long

term unemployed especially in those households where no one works. The Council has a duty to help its

residents as well as businesses as part of its economic strategy.

There is a notable lack of outreach activity in the draft economic strategy, which must be rectified. The

Council also needs to commit to monitoring and reporting on the success of the strategy on an annual

basis whilst revising it where necessary. This is implicit in Appendix 3 but needs to be incorporated as a

specific action.

The Council will conduct

regular monitoring of key

aspects of the Strategy,

including a full annual review

and update.

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

Given the emphasis of the importance of the IPA in the preface, IBC should commit to releasing all

papers presented at IPA Board meetings (subject to annotation of commercially confidential

information). This will allow the business community and general public to better understand the issues

facing Ipswich and respond to them accordingly.

3. There is no question 3 included on the response form. We assume this is another numbering error.

4. OVERALL STRATEGY QUESTIONS

Do you agree with the overall aim of the strategy?


If you disagree, please indicate what the strategy should focus on

The aims of the strategy need to go further, be strengthened and include more detail in order for it to

be effective. There is a major lack of outreach activity and little to help individuals back to work.





Does the draft economic strategy provide clear information regarding Ipswich’s economic

performance now and in the future?

Disagree. The strategy contains no detail on historic job trends in Ipswich nor forecasts for new jobs etc

nor does it provide data on average earnings etc. so obviously does not provide clear information on

economic performance.

The Council is engaged with

a number of partners to look

at ways of reducing

unemployment in the IPA

area. Further details will be

incorporated in the


3 We note there is some reference to post 2016 activities in Appendix 3.

Northern

Fringe

Protection

Group

If you disagree, please describe where you feel the strategy is unclear

As stated above, the aims of the strategy need to go further, be strengthened and include more detail in

order for it to be effective. Many actions are not time-bounded and should be accompanied by specific

delivery deadlines with greater outreach activity. There is a lack of underpinning data and an apparent

mis-representation of the relative performance of the Ipswich economy.



strengthened in many areas and there is a lack of detail on how the actions will be implemented.

Are there any key partners the Council has overlooked at this stage? If so, please indicate who they

are, and how they can support and feed into the strategy

We would like to see greater reference to EU funding streams for obvious reasons.

Are there any further comments you would like to make on specific paragraphs of the strategy?

Please see our comments above.

Are there any additional comments or points you would like to raise that have not been covered?

Please see our comments above.

4 We note there is some reference to post 2016 activities in Appendix 3.

Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)

1. SECTION SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Section 2 - ‘Vision’, outlines a vision for the economic development of Ipswich, including 3 core aims. Do

you agree with the overall vision and the associated core aims?

Disagree.

Definition of Vision; “Unusual competence in discernment or perception; intelligent foresight”

Economic Strategy's Vision

• Officers have been selective about sources and nature of data, “internal data” is insufficient- research

is limited, analysis is questionable, data is not up to date enough for this to be robust and meaningful. (

mention during Executive Meeting on this)

• It fails to adequately and realistically examine Ipswich's economic potential.

• This draft strategy does not “scope the current economic profile of Ipswich” with honesty and

competence.

• The use of presumptive language used in the Economic Strategy's Vision, such as “will prosper”; vision

“will be realised” ;” will be a dynamic culturally vibrant and exciting town”;” will enable individuals to

flourish and will be notable for their enterprise, ambition , creativity and pride in their town.” is

unhelpful as it cannot be stated with any certainty.

• Most importantly, what is proposed is not “sustainable” in the current economic climate and is

contradictory with the statements made over time in the 2007, 2009, and later LDF Core Strategy

Sustainability work and scoping exercises. The same terminology was used then and Ipswich has failed

to deliver especially on job creation. The SA/SEA work and reports state 18,000 jobs in Ipswich, not

within the Ipswich policy Area.

• During the Inspection of the CORE STRATEGY, the inspector had difficulty with soundness of plan re

jobs. She did in fact allow some discretion here PROVIDED there was an immediately timely Review of

the CS which has not happened.

Comments noted, some

minor amendments made to

phraseology.

The Council also notes the

comments regards job

creation and a review will be

undertaken, and the findings

will be incorporated into

subsequent regular reviews

of the Strategy.

Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)

The key Ipswich context and demographic data needs to be used, in a more intelligent innovative way

and in its most up to date and accurate form.

The vision for Ipswich is not clear in the context of the Ipswich Policy area and the interplay between

these two different areas is confusing. There are also no forecasts of when these jobs might be created.

Without specific employment analysis and forecasts etc for Ipswich it will be impossible to optimise the

Ipswich Economic Development Strategy 2012-26.

Reflect and use the State of Suffolk Report information more honestly.

Reflect the concerns raised within the Haven Gateway meetings and minutes re jobs in the IPA.

Reflect the fact that information regarding Felixstowe Ports capacity to generate high levels of jobs is

being eroded by competition.

True levels of job losses, redundancies, part or casual working practices is not reflected.

Do not over rely on section 106 and CIL as this Government is intent on allowing” viability”

considerations to override developers responsibilities. There is little certainty here.

We believe that there should be additional core aims for example that incorporate 1) Redeveloping

brownfield land 2) attracting better-paid professional jobs to Ipswich 3) Reducing the number of

welfare dependant families.4) providing accurate analysis and predictive information regarding EU

migrants which are settling in increasing numbers especially from Poland. ( Other than recording those

seeking national Insurance numbers as stated in the State of Ipswich report.

New initiatives in addition to the two quoted will be required to realise the vision. It is disappointing

that the need for further new initiatives has not been included. IBC must plan, develop and implement

additional new initiatives and this needs to be included in this section.

The comments regards job

figures are noted, and

reference to actions in

relation to these are

indicated previously.

The State of Ipswich was

taken into consideration,

though not all data taken

into consideration is

presented in detail in the

Strategy.

The comment regards CIL

and targeted

development/job creation

are noted, and will inform

the subsequent


Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)

Do you agree that Section 3 - ‘Background & Strategic Context’, accurately describes the wider

economic context?

Disagree.

Economic profiling is limited and poor- rather wishful thinking or fairy tale territory rather than actual

and evidenced based.

Analysis of “stable sectors” is questionable as is Potential growth sectors. Outlook is increased

redundancy and displacement within the private sector, insurance and IT/Computing. Increased

competition outside area will give Ipswich little room for manoeuvre.

Impacts of Ipswich's poor demographic will be significant.

UCS medical faculty welcome but relatively small numbers of jobs. BT is slow to grow. Snoasis I feel is

unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

Creative industries are a good bet. You can't grow your way out of a mess but building houses without

jobs as Spain and Ireland have found to their cost.

Existing skill base which has been displaced ( exBT- craftsmen/manufacturing etc) needs to be utilised

and encouraged.

We also note that the State of Ipswich Report 2012 shows that Ipswich is comparatively more

deprived since 2007,which is worrying as deprivation has a strong link to household income and hence

the local economy. We believe economic data on relative earnings, deprivation, GDP, GVA

etc should be included in the background.

We disagree that the Ipswich economy has coped comparatively well as shown in the graph on page 11.

This is more strongly illustrated by the net employment rate in Ipswich, which has fallen

from 78.7% (2007) to 69.2% (2011) compared to a fall from 74.8% to 73.5% in the East of England

We are concerned that IBC has chose to gloss over this data and paints a false picture of the

The Council’s presentation of

data is based on a range on

statistical data, not just the

State of Ipswich, although

this data has been

considered. The Council

believes that in comparison

to many other similar

locations in the UK – Ipswich

has coped comparatively

well, the East of England is

necessarily the most relevant

comparator for an urban

regional centre.

The Council will aim to

include greater clarity as to

the potential for specific

sector growth in the


performance of Ipswich during the economic downturn. Clearly Ipswich has performed comparatively

worse.

Too high a level of young people NEET.

The Council notes this, and is

engaged in several imitative

to address this issue – the

Council has not specified

every initiative in the

Strategy, but will make more

detailed references in the


Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)

(State of Ipswich Report 2012 – the source of other reported data in this section). Specific data on the

long term job trends in Ipswich should be included.

This section should also include data (and subsequent updates) from the paper presented at the

IPA Board on 13th December 2011 that contains employment forecasts, actual recent delivery and

the ingredients for achieving growth as well as the major opportunities and risks to growth in the area

etc. IBC has refused to release this data on the grounds of "the public interest in withholding the papers

outweighing the public interest in releasing them". As IBC is now consulting the public

on this very issue, it is very clearly in the public and interest to release this information in order for

the public, local business and other interested parties to participate in the consultation in a

meaningful manner.1

These comments are noted,

and have been responded to.

Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)

Are there any significant, realistic investment and development projects that we have overlooked in

Section 4 - ‘Future Developments’? If so, please provide details

It is disappointing that IBC have neglected to identify those sites that have stalled developments nor

outlined how it plans to help progress these most notably the large Westgate and Mint Quarter sites in

the centre of town. IBC needs to include a clear economic development strategy for these sites covering

2012-26. It is also disappointing that the majority of new developments identified will not provide

better paid jobs in more professional sectors. IBC should not be asking for details of projects that it has

overlooked but should be presenting its proposals on how to stimulate the development of existing

brownfield sites.

All Council housing building should take place on brownfield sites to as part of integrated regeneration

projects that help deliver local jobs and apprenticeships.

Do you agree that Section 5 - ‘Economic Profile & Key Sectors’, accurately reflects the significance and

potential of specific sectors in the Ipswich economy?

Neither agree nor disagree as there is no quantitative data provided. Several aspects of this

chapter could readily be applied to other British towns and there is no assessment

If you disagree, please provide details of sectors and how the information should be

Amended

Sector -specific employment forecasts and potential for the period 2012-2026 should be included

in this chapter for both Ipswich and the Ipswich Policy Area. This will provide better insight and

thereby help optimise the Ipswich Economic Strategy 2012-2026.

These comments are noted,

these town centre areas are

addressed in the Town

Centre Master plan, which

was published in Spring

2012.

These comments are noted

and will be taken into

consideration, though not

specifically referred to in the

Strategy.

These comments are noted

and will be taken into

consideration for monitoring

and review activity.

The section on skills and education also needs to address schools in detail. The statement “The

provision of post GCSE education continues to improve in Ipswich” is misleading and needs to be

corrected. Ipswich Borough is a massive 15.1% (2011) below the national average for Key Stage 4

attainment (the two year education period that incorporates GCSEs), which is a substantial

deterioration from 4.4% below (2005) (State of Ipswich Report 2012). This low level of educational

attainment will detrimentally impact on the number of skilled jobs being created in the Borough and

the demand for new housing as people will prefer to send their children to schools outside of the

Borough and therefore people will not be attracted to live within the Borough. IBC cannot afford to

ignore this issue.

The section on potential funding streams needs to include European funding and other UK

Government funding opportunities and/or related initiatives such as the Green Deal and

Technology Strategy Board Funding etc.

Noted, the Council

acknowledges that there

needs to be a shared effort

across all partners to drive

attainment levels up, whilst

recognising that the County

Council has primary

responsibility for overseeing

attainment levels in state

schools. The reference in the

Strategy is focused on the

substantial investment that

has taken place at both

Suffolk New College and

Suffolk One (on the edge of

IBC boundary) in improving

the provision of opportunity

for post 16 education.

The Council will look to

address the potential of EU

funding streams as part of

the implementation plan

exercise.

Section 7 - ‘Implementation Plan’, identifies 11 Council led activities that will underpin the core aims of

the Economic Development Strategy. Do you broadly agree that the Council should focus efforts on

these activities?


The Implementation Plan appears to focus on the shorter term despite this being a strategy to

2026. As currently drafted the document is actually a three year plan. In general the actions need to be



We have the following comments on the current Action Points.

Action Point 2. Should include reference to apprenticeships.

· Action Point 2. Action 1 – All new homes should be on brownfield sites as part of regeneration

programmes.

· Action Point 3. This needs to be strengthened considerably through additional actions.

· Action Point 5. Efforts need to be prioritised on Ipswich as this is the Ipswich Economic

Strategy. New jobs targets need to be set for Ipswich itself then monitored and reported on in order to

assess the success of the strategy and review it as required. The Council should detail how it will

monitor and report on the creation of new jobs in Ipswich.

· Action Point 5. Action 3 – the text is incomplete and needs to include reference to schools and Suffolk

County Council.

· Action Point 6. The statement “Where applicable, the Council will make every effort to identify suitable

sources of funding, as well as write and/or support funding applications. ”needs to be better defined.

All of these comments are

noted and will be taken into

consideration as part of the

implementation plan

consualtion.

Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)

Action Point 6. The statement “The Council is committed to doing all it can to encourage stalled

development projects on waterfront and throughout the town to provide both employment and

housing (Investment)” would be better as an on-going action. Specific details on how it will do this need

to be included. For example a specific action plan for each major site needs to be developed and

implemented this financial year.

Action Point 6. Additional actions need to be included to strengthen this commitment.

Action Point 7. The statement “the Council itself is committed to continuing to offer its own

apprenticeship programme to provide opportunities for young people in Ipswich (Start-up, Survival, and

Investment)” would be better as a continuing action. Reference to delivering apprenticeships in relation

to council house building needs to be included.

Action Point 8. These actions need to be strengthened.

Action Point 9. These actions need to be strengthened.

Action Point 10. These actions need to be strengthened. For example the site needs to be marketed and

kept up to date.

Action Point 11. These actions need to be taken further. For example a plan of activity needs to be

developed and agreed with UCS then jointly implemented.

Action Point 12. These actions need to be strengthened and expanded to cover other UK

and European funding streams rather than focus on Growing Places and Ipswich rail station.

Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)

Are there additional actions you would like to see the Council take a lead on?

In our opinion the Council needs to include an additional action point that includes actions to help get

residents back into work, especially those in more deprived areas of Ipswich and the long term

unemployed. The Council has a duty to help its residents as well as businesses as part of its economic

strategy.

The Council needs to commit to monitoring and reporting on the success of the strategy on an annual

basis whilst revising it where necessary.

Given the emphasis of the importance of the IPA in the preface, IBC should commit to releasing all

papers presented at IPA Board meetings (subject to annotation of commercially confidential

information). This will allow the business community and general public to better understand the

issues facing Ipswich and respond to them accordingly.

3. There is no question 3 included on the response form. We assume this is another numbering error.

4. OVERALL STRATEGY QUESTIONS

Do you agree with the overall aim of the strategy?


If you disagree, please indicate what the strategy should focus on

The aims of the strategy need to go further, be strengthened and include more detail in order for it to

be effective. Many actions are not time-bounded and should be accompanied by specific delivery

deadlines.

Noted, the Council is looking

at various options where it

can either directly engage in

reducing unemployment,

and also support and work

with partner organisations

who have a specific/singular

focus on this activity.

The request for the release

of papers is noted, and a

response has been provided.

Noted.

Barbara

Robinson

(SOCS)




Does the draft economic strategy provide clear information regarding Ipswich’s economic performance

now and in the future?

Disagree.

The strategy contains no detail on historic job trends in Ipswich nor forecasts for new jobs etc nor does

it provide data on average earnings, GDP, GVA etc. so obviously does not provide clear information on

economic performance.

If you disagree, please describe where you feel the strategy is unclear

As stated above, the aims of the strategy need to go further, be strengthened and include more detail in

order for it to be effective. Many actions are not time-bounded and should be accompanied by specific

delivery deadlines. There is a lack of underpinning data and an apparent mis-representation of the

relative performance of the Ipswich economy.




Noted, please refer to earlier

comments.

ABP –Ipswich

Port (Alistair

McFarlane)

ABP endorses the inclusion of Transport and Logistics as an established sector and supports the

inclusion of both Energy and Tourism as future growth sectors.

We note the housing growth targets in section 2 and would be pleased to remain a consultee in relation

to ongoing and future planning applications that may have a direct or indirect effect on the operation

and development of Ipswich's commercial port.

In section 4 we acknowledge and welcome the proposal to actively engage and maintain a dialogue with

business owners to monitor emerging and sustained issues and challenges.

We note that in section 5 you describe the marina as attractively pedestrianised, we understand that

this reference is in relation to the Northern quays of the wet dock and would point out that they are at

the time of writing not fully pedestrianised and that ABP have and will continue to have private

vehicular rights over these roads and the route over Orwell Quay and the route passing Eagle Wharf and

Gasworks Quay.

Paragraph five of section 5 refers to 'the periphery of the waterfront area', can you please define

'periphery'.

We welcome the inclusion of ABP investment which is now substantially in excess of the £26 million

figure. The inclusion of ABP investment in this section predominantly dealing with the waterfront may

however give the impression that our investment is entirely on the waterfront area when indeed the

majority has been invested in the port's commercial assets and equipment on Cliff Quay and the West

Bank Terminals. We have of course also invested substantially in marina infrastructure.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

ABP –

Ipswich Port

(Alistair

McFarlane)

We note the inclusion of the ongoing aspirations, however uncertain, to build an additional crossing

over the River Orwell and would take this opportunity to restate ABP's opposition to a wet dock crossing

over port operational land.

ABP welcome the inclusion of port and freight activity as one of the four distinct current areas of activity

included in section 6, however on page 17 paragraph two, the statement 'the port is adjacent to the

waterfront re-development project…' could be somewhat misinterpreted. The majority of extensive

commercial port activities stretch from Griffin Wharf to Bourne Bridge on the West Bank and from Eagle

Wharf to the Orwell Bridge on the river's East Bank and are not limited to land adjacent to the

waterfront development.

Paragraph four makes reference to bonded warehousing, while the capacity is correct the facilities are

not currently bonded.

We would be grateful if 'ro-ro ferry facilities' and 'rail facilities' could be added to the comprehensive list

of Ipswich port facilities included in the strategy.

ABP welcome the inclusion of the section on energy including offshore wind and the link with Lowestoft.

Noted.

Noted and amended.

Noted and amended.

Noted and amended.

Appendix 2 – External Consultation Feedback · 2013-03-12 · Appendix 2 – External Consultation Feedback Respondent Feedback Amendment Suffolk New College Requested specifics

Documents