Object

Representation ID: 26231

Received: 21/02/2020

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

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

NHS England and CCG have requested that IBC identifies policies and strategies that directly or indirectly impact upon healthcare provision and has responded with comments. Shortfalls identified in capacity at existing premises. Provision required within the LP to address impacts of development on health infrastructure and to ensure timely cost-effective delivery of necessary infrastructure improvements, in the interests of pursuing sustainable development. The recommendations set out are those deemed appropriate having regard to the projected needs arising from the LP. However, if the recommendations are not implemented, we reserve the right to make representations about soundness at relevant junctures.

Object

Representation ID: 26467

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Agent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

A comment was made to the previous Regulation 18 consultation in March 2019 undertaken by Ipswich Borough Council, where Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils sought a re-phrasing of paragraph 8.7 to clarify that whilst Ipswich Borough may be under-bounded, the Borough will meet its own identified housing needs with the Borough for this Plan. This paragraph remains unchanged.

Support

Representation ID: 26583

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

Agent: National Highways (Formerly Highways England)

In general, Highways England considers that Ipswich Borough Council’s consideration of land use policy, the transport evidence to support it and the consequential understanding on the impact of the strategic road network is generally sound and consistent with government policy.