Object

Representation ID: 26402

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Argued for years that previous homes and employment targets set by IBC were too high, unrealistic and based upon flawed evidence. Now clear that previous Plans
were unsound and were therefore sub-optimal for Ipswich as we argued strongly at the time. Disappointing that IBC has taken so long to accept this. The proposed lower targets are more realistic. Agree with IBC that it has established a 5- year land supply of 5.06 years including a 20% buffer or contingency in the 5-year supply. Potential impact of Sizewell C on IGS and CS has not been assessed (rail freight Ipswich-Westerfield).

Object

Representation ID: 26455

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Grainger Plc

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Plan is ineffective as it does not allocate an adequate number of deliverable sites over the plan period to maintain the housing need of the Borough as a consequence of the 20% buffer now required under the Housing Delivery Test;

Object

Representation ID: 26521

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Argued for years that previous homes and employment targets set by IBC were too high, unrealistic and based upon flawed evidence. Now clear that previous Plans
were unsound and were therefore sub-optimal for Ipswich as we argued strongly at the time. Disappointing that IBC has taken so long to accept this. The proposed lower targets are more realistic. Agree with IBC that it has established a 5- year land supply of 5.06 years including a 20% buffer or contingency in the 5-year supply. Potential impact of Sizewell C on IGS and CS has not been assessed (rail freight Ipswich-Westerfield).

Object

Representation ID: 26581

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We support the recognition within the Plan that the Council will need to work closely with neighbouring authorities regarding future development and infrastructure, as set out in the first strategic objective. However, as expanded upon below we do not consider that the Council have fully explored all opportunities to work with neighbouring authorities to meet full identified
housing needs throughout the Plan period as a whole, as also set out in response to the Suffolk Coastal emerging Local Plan (refer to Appendix C).

Object

Representation ID: 26619

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Councillor Oliver Holmes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although improved infrastructure is stated to be essential for sustainable growth, there are no viable transport solutions offered. Such schemes are unlikely to be achievable as planning gain through development. The Draft is therefore unsound and needs to be re-written to include sustainable options.

Object

Representation ID: 26646

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Silverton Aggregates Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Discrepancy in the housing need figures agreed across the HMA. Understood the IPSA agreed SOCG 2020, and a copy of this is available on the IBC website signed January 2020 (see table 1). The East Suffolk Final Draft Local Plan relies on the standard methodology based on the 2016 household projections, whereas the IBC Local Plan Review focusses on the 2014 household projections, thus reducing their housing need figure. Without further clarification with regards to the discrepancies between these projections, it is unclear whether the Council’s emerging Local Plan meets the tests of soundness, as outlined in NPPF 35.