Support

Representation ID: 2

Received: 27/01/2014

Respondent: JPL Properties LLP

As the landowners of Airport Farm Kennels (IP152), we are pleased to see IBC intention to form a gateway to Ipswich and support the promotion of this land for employment use.

Object

Representation ID: 105

Received: 04/03/2014

Respondent: Strutt and Parker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There should not be a distinction between IP140a and IP140b. The amalgamation of the 2 sites into one allocation would provide flexibility and be better suited to deliver the Council's aspirations for the site. Amend Table 3/DM42 to refer to park and ride within a single IP140 allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 108

Received: 04/03/2014

Respondent: Strutt and Parker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Please find attached a written representation that provides comments on Policy DM45 in regard of the land allocations IP140a and IP140b.

Object

Representation ID: 109

Received: 04/03/2014

Respondent: Strutt and Parker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Please find attached a written representation that provides comments on Policy DM42 in regard of the land allocations IP140a and IP140b.

Comment

Representation ID: 163

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

ABP supports the allocation of Site IP037, but requests amendment to the wording of Policy DM42 to allow:
- the expansion of boat building and marine leisure uses where appropriate
- more flexibility in the proportional split of acceptable uses where a master plan or the preparation of more detailed proposals show this is expedient.

Object

Representation ID: 225

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Leslie Short

Agent: Mr Leslie Short

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Applekirk Properties Ltd object to the allocation of their site (IP035) as an employment site. This ignores the multi-use mixed scheme for which the site already has planning permission as well as the pivotal/enabling role that this site could perform in a retail led regeneration of this end of the Ipswich waterfront.

Object

Representation ID: 490

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: EDF Energy Plc

Agent: EDF Energy Plc

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to 100% employment allocation for this site and propose 75% residential and 25% employment use. This would be supported by the principle of NPPF para 51. NPPF para 22 also states that policies should avoid long term protection of allocated employemnt sites where there is no reasonable prospect of them being used for that purpose. When last marketed the site only provoked serious interest from housing developers. It is felt that the impact of the adjacent sewage works could be mitigated.

Object

Representation ID: 583

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Barton Willmore LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst supporting the allocation of site 140b for employment, Ashfield Land objects to the wording in the "Notes" in Table 3 and rather than primarily B1 uses, a variety (B1,2,8 and Sui Generis) should be permitted. It is inferred that medium to long term delivery implies phased development and this wording should be removed to promote flexibility. Reference to the unallocated adjacent site in Mid Suffolk DC area should be deleted.