Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review

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.

Object

Representation ID: 5153

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Deprivation in Ipswich also arises from poor education, poor transport links and poor planning decisions by the Borough Council.

Object

Representation ID: 5155

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The City Deal was agreed between a wider group of parties than simply Ipswich, including SCC, BDC, MSDC, SCDC and NALEP.

Object

Representation ID: 5157

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This vision contradicts the preceding statement in 6.3. The vision is anodyne and non-specific.

Object

Representation ID: 5158

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Borough needs to explain how its recent purchase of the Sproughton Sugar Beet site, not in the Borough boundary but within the broader remit of this document, corresponds with their strategy for strategic employment sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5160

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The growth of the university should not be defined by the borders of the Education Quarter or new campus.

Object

Representation ID: 5163

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This level of housing allocation cannot be supported without new infrastructure, little of which is identified in this document.

The affordable housing target for the IGS is unrealistic and is not the current target being discussed with developers, so should be omitted as misleading.

Object

Representation ID: 5165

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The extension of the central retail area is opposed by Ipswich Central, which represents town centre retailers. They propose contracting the central retail area to take account of changed shopping habits and concentrate the shopping district in a smaller area, running from the Waterfront to Christchurch Park. This document directly contradicts their plan, which also has the support of SCC.

Moreover, IBC should declare its financial interest in seeking to extend the central shopping area, as it would involve land owned by IBC.

Object

Representation ID: 5166

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The document does not describe an objective for the renewal and new planting of street trees.

Object

Representation ID: 5168

Received: 04/03/2015

Respondent: Parliament

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There are still significant areas of derelict and/or underutilised land in the town centre which need to be better recognized in this document.