ipswich.gov.uk

Support

Draft Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 156

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

Representation Summary:

ABP supports the allocation of Site IP037, but requests amendment to the wording of the policy and supporting text at paragraph 5.8 to allow more flexibility in the proportional split of acceptable uses where a master plan or the preparation of more detailed proposals show this is expedient or necessary to deliver successful regeneration of the Island Site.

Full text:

ABP supports the allocation of Site IP037 - Island Site for housing as part of a mixed use development. However, the proportional split of uses set out in the policy can only, given the nascent proposals for the site, be aspirational. The precise split should be a matter for a future master plan and/or planning application. The Island Site presently accommodates successful high profile marine businesses (including Fairline Boats Ltd and Spirit Yachts Ltd) and the commercially successful Ipswich Haven Marina (which has contributed significantly to the regeneration of the waterfront area). Accommodating these activities in the future development of the Island Site so that they continue to contribute to an active and appealing waterfront environment for further regeneration will be critical. This should be properly reflected in Policy DM39 and in the Opportunity Area development principles and guidelines in Part C of the draft DPD.

A critical challenge to realise successful redevelopment of the Island Site, given the significant development costs on this site, will be viability. The high proportion of 'open space' use and low indicative development capacity for homes, which is at the lower end of the Policy DM30a range and is significantly lower than in previous iterations of the IP-One AAP, has not been informed by a detailed study and does not take account of any viability considerations. In this context, the requirement at paragraph 5.8 for the proportion of housing to be within + or -5% of the proportion indicated in the policy is onerous and, in our opinion, may prejudice or even preclude redevelopment. ABP would instead request that this wording is amended to acknowledge that changes may be agreed to these proportions if accepted as part of the preparation of a master plan or planning application.