Support

Representation ID: 26222

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Ipswich & East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group & West Suffolk CCG

It is important to remember that improved or newly created infrastructure, alone, will not fully mitigate the impact of development growth. Resource and revenue implications provide a very significant risk to the delivery of primary care services and we should continue to work together to identify ways in which sustainable health care services can be delivered and how development can contribute to healthy communities and the training and recruitment of health care professionals.

Support

Representation ID: 26262

Received: 26/02/2020

Respondent: East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (ESNEFT)

ESNEFT is undergoing a Sustainability Transformation Plan (STP) to determine how acute hospital healthcare provision will be provided. Acute hospital trusts are required to provide early delivery of additional inpatient bed spaces, which for Ipswich will support growth and resilience across the local health economy. Significant investment in healthcare facilities and services is/ will be taking place, to meet requirements of existing and future catchment population by planned new housing growth included in the Local Plan. A new Emergency Department and Urgent Treatment Centre, is due to be implemented 2020/21. to deliver the STP a planning policy basis is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 26343

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Comments prepared in liaison with NFPG. SOCS have consistently baulked at the unrealistic/ unjustified housing and job targets. We have challenged population projections which have driven this agenda. Good, at last, that the legacy of growth, expansion, over ambition and wishful thinking of the early 2000’s finally are being challenged. However, there is a way to go to
achieve a sound plan. The Duty to Cooperate is hard for Ipswich to achieve when partner organisations are reluctant to take ownership/ responsibility for the adverse impacts they are imposing on the County Town. Ipswich has little power/ control for resolution.

Object

Representation ID: 26347

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Purpose of review is to update the Core Strategy until 2036 taking into account new legislation and NPPF Updates and to align the Local Plan with neighbours. However, EastSuffolk is tasked with making modifications to their plan. SOCS very critical of the ‘Statement of Common Ground’ issued last year and submitted a response to the emerging Mid Suffolk Local Plan Consultation in addition to Suffolk Coastal District Council. SOCS attended and gave oral evidence to the EastSuffolk Plan Inquiry. Feel the Duty to Cooperate has not been effectively achieved within this Draft; nor has it by the partner local authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 26361

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Whilst collaboration between the IPSA authorities has occurred it has not resulted in effective and concrete outcomes to ensure the housing needs of the HMA will be delivered in full. The Local Plan does not form a strategy that will provide the necessary certainty that is needed to ensure that the minimum housing requirement across the Ipswich Housing Market Area can be achieved in full over the plan period. From the outset of the plan making process, the local authorities within the ISPA have been aware of the issue of unmet needs arising from Ipswich over the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 26381

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Persimmon Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Ipswich's OAN have risen. Over the last two years house sales have fallen. There is functional need for IBC, ESDC and B&MSDC to ensure development needs are met. There seems to be little recognition of the potential of this area, or detail provided on how ESDC and IBC have cooperated. Ipswich's administrative boundary justifies significant efforts to work with neighbouring authorities as a priority on cross boundary issues. This absence of detail weighs against how positively prepared the Final Draft Local has been and the effectiveness of its approach over the plan period. Persimmon endorse the statements made by the HBF.

Object

Representation ID: 26447

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Therefore Pigeon retain the view that, whilst there appears to be much mention of Ipswich Borough Council working with neighbouring authorities, this does not appear to materialise into any real contribution to delivering housing outside of the Ipswich Borough Council area during the plan period. Despite the comments made by Pigeon previously as part of the Regulation 18 Consultation, the Council do not appear to have given these any significant weight.

Object

Representation ID: 26457

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Grainger Plc

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

By virtue of lack of available sites, the draft Plan fails in its Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring planning authorities to identify additional sites resulting in the Plan not being justified or positively prepared as well as being contrary to the legal requirements of the Localism Act 2011

Support

Representation ID: 26587

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Agent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Through the process of development of this Plan and those covered by adjacent planning authorities within Ipswich Strategic Planning Area (ISPA), Highways England has worked closely with Suffolk County Council on the development of the evidence base. The modelling work shows that accumulatively growth in ISPA is predicted to pose significant strain on the transport network in and around Ipswich. Additional highway capacity will not on its own address these issues and it is noted that the local authorities across the ISPA agree that robust steps must be taken to prioritise healthy and sustainable travel. Highways England supports this position.

Object

Representation ID: 26637

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is no cooperation between local authorities such as has happened around Cambridge or Norwich.

Support

Representation ID: 26641

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Silverton Aggregates Ltd

It would appear that the Council has sought to co-operate with the neighbouring authorities and statutory bodies on the key strategic and cross boundary issues. This is welcomed, and we consider that this is important given the tightly drawn administrative boundary, which constrains the practical options for meeting needs for development within the Borough.