Object

Representation ID: 5151

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not co-operated in any substantive way with its neighbouring authorities or with SCC. The relationship is profoundly dysfunctional. SCC's objections to the emerging IGS have not been accounted for in this document. The Ipswich Policy Area Board is a talking shop. The inspector should ask neighbour authorities and SCC about their experience of IBC's co-operation to gauge whether this policy and its accompanying appendix bears any relationship with reality.

Support

Representation ID: 5265

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: New Anglia LEP for Norfolk and Suffolk

The County Council is committed to supporting the sustainable development of Ipswich. Through participation in the Ipswich Policy Area Board and on-going work to shape and implement the Local Plan, the County Council believes that, with the Borough Council, the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate have been met in respect of County Council functions.

Object

Representation ID: 5281

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Paragraph 4.4 refers to the Duty to co-operate, it is evident from the failure of this plan to properly set out a long-term strategy to meet future development needs that he Council has not adequately engaged in co-operation with neighbouring authorities in advance of the preparation of this Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5322

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Yes

IBC has an agreement with neighbouring councils to undertake further policy work which addresses growth needs of the IPA, including potential unmet housing need from IBC. CSP therefore consider that IBC has demonstrated that it has engaged with neighbouring authorities and has a strategy in place to address its housing land supply. However, IBC is seeking to: "... rely on windfall sites and will work with neighbouring local authorities to address housing need later in the plan period (CS7)." IBC should ensure that it continues proactively to explore options of accommodating housing overspill through the whole plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 5325

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

Until recently (2012/13) little effort has been made to constructively engage with neighbouring authorities. There is no recent evidence of effective and deliverable policies on strategic cross-boundary matters. The Core Strategy should not be examined until such work is released. The effectiveness of the Core Strategy would be greatly improved through cross-boundary joint initiatives and the public should have the opportunity to comment on these. Any intentions for development of the former sugar beet site (in Babergh District and recently purchased by Ipswich Borough Council) should be examined as part of the Core Strategy Review.

Object

Representation ID: 5363

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council has failed to demonstrate how it has met the Duty to Cooperate. CS2(b) explains that housing need will be met in the wider Ipswich Policy Area. Table 3/CS7 further reinforces the degree to which the Council depends on adjoining authorities. The Council have not yet secured agreement to meet its housing need in adjoining authorities. It must therefore focus on demonstrating and justifying as part of this plan, what need it can meet, and identifying the infrastructure necessary to support that amount of development. CS2 should provide the overall narrative of this approach. [Also logged as CS2 objection]

Object

Representation ID: 5410

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

Duplicate of CS2 objection. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate how it has met the Duty to Cooperate. CS2(b) explains that housing need will be met in the wider Ipswich Policy Area. Reference to Table 3 indicates that the 'residual need later in the plan' represents around 40% of the overall plan housing requirement. The 'duty to cooperate' topic paper offers no substantive evidence that the Duty has been discharged. We are unconvinced that the Council can satisfactorily demonstrate that it has achieved the duty and for that reason we consider that the Plan is fatally flawed.

Object

Representation ID: 5537

Received: 02/03/2015

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Part B of the policy [CS2 - see separate representation] states that later in the plan period the Council will work with neighbouring authorities to address the housing need within the Ipswich housing market area (HMA). We consider that the plan is unsound because:
a) it has not been positively prepared [to meet objectively assessed housing need];
b) it is unjustified - it does not represent the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives; and
c) it is ineffective because it is not based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

Object

Representation ID: 5555

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Plan is not legally compliant and fails to comply with the duty to co-operate by failing to appropriately "identify significant cross boundary and inter-authority issues" and by failing to ensure that the plan rests on a credible evidence base. It also fails on duty to co-operate with adjacent local authorities, and with the Marine Management Organisation. If the plan cannot demonstrate effective joint working to meet cross-boundary strategic priorities, the public fear their quality of life, health and wellbeing will be at stake. The plan fails to demonstrate a positive approach to 'Localism'. Endorse NFPG points also.

Object

Representation ID: 5578

Received: 25/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Cyril Eden

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council. IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 5657

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jane Catling

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 5873

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Roy Bush

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted.

Object

Representation ID: 5884

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr James Collins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted.

Object

Representation ID: 5951

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Frank Seal

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15017

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Michael Keats

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15030

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Anne Saggers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15103

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Roberta Seal

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15126

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Mark Tweedale

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15129

Received: 25/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Brown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15165

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Richard Young

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15177

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Carole Young

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15189

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Glynne Whitehead

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15201

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Justin Keys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15213

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Keys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15225

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr D E Reed

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15237

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Peter Galpin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15249

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr D Halstead

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15261

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jane Halstead

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15273

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Bright Hammond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].

Object

Representation ID: 15285

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs L R Child

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

IBC has not demonstrated that it has effectively worked with neighbouring Authorities on cross boundary issues affecting jobs, housing and infrastructure since there are no published results nor results incorporated into the CS. This does not accord with the 2011 Localism Bill and consequently the CS should not be adopted. IBC needs to demonstrate that the strategic purchase of the old sugar beet factory was with the prior agreement of Babergh Council.
IBC needs to explain in the CS how this strategic purchase aligns with employment and housing growth strategies and targets [to focus new employment within the town centre].