ipswich.gov.uk
CS6: The Ipswich Policy Area
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5275
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Duty to co-operate is not met as the Plan fails to properly set out a long term strategy to meet future development needs, the Council has not adequately engaged in co-operation with neighbouring authorities in advance of the preparation of the Plan.
There is a recognition that the Council has not met the requirement under toe NPPF to identify sufficient sites, and that the Council and its neighbouring authorities so need to work together to achieve a robust strategy and there is an admission that the work that is needed hasn't been done yet.
see attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5364
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? No
We do not consider that the Borough has adequately demonstrated that it has met the Duty to Cooperate. The requirements of the Duty, as explained by the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, are for key issues to be considered and addressed during plan-making, and for clear outcomes to be reflected in policy. The Council must focus on identifying its full objectively assessed need, and justifying the extent to which it can meet a proportion of that need. Policy CS6 should provide the basis for it to secure agreement with adjoining authorities in the longer term.
See attached.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5412
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? No
We do not consider that the Borough has adequately demonstrated that it has met the Duty to Cooperate. The requirements of the Duty, as explained by the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, are for key issues to be considered and addressed during plan-making, and for clear outcomes to be reflected in policy. There is limited evidence to demonstrate that this has happened. There is, however, clear evidence to demonstrate that key issues have been deferred, and that Policies provide only an interim policy position pending further discussions. Neither situation demonstrates that the Duty to Cooperate has been met.
See attached.
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5441
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Ipswich Central
Ipswich Policy Area (P39) - we would be pleased to represent town centre businesses on the Ipswich Policy Board
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5545
Received: 02/03/2015
Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The plan is unsound because it is not based upon constructive cooperation that will address the unmet need of the HMA.
Policy CS6: The Ipswich Policy Area
The plan is unsound because it is not based upon constructive cooperation that will address the unmet need of the HMA.
The policy states that the preparation of joint or aligned development plan documents is to be explored later in the plan period. We do not understand why this has to be later in the plan period or why this preparation has not occurred in advance of the finalisation of this plan. A more convincing policy might have stated that the authorities will embark upon an immediate and coordinated review of the collective plans of the HMA by 2015 with the process to be completed with new plans to be submitted for examination by 2020.
As the policy is currently worded there the councils would be under no compunction to do what they say. The inclusion of specific dates in the plan would place more pressure on the councils to do what they say.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5765
Received: 04/03/2015
Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policies written in general terms are selectively chosen, particularly for example with regard to relying on the scope of the Ipswich Policy Area. At times the scope of the plan covers the whole Ipswich Policy Area but at others times it does not. The Parish Council have concerns about the impact of the plan on Tuddenham St Martin, and the presumption being made in relation to areas in neighbouring authorities.
See attached.