Object

Representation ID: 231

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 consider that site IP 040 and 041 now combined as site 040 as the focus of further major retail development is the wrong location with which to deliver the council's retail aspirations, turns its back on the needs of the stalled waterfront regeneration but more so the opportunity that the waterfront area presents. Moreover the allocation of the site simply serves to perpetuate the east-west alignment of the central area for retail purposes in which the extremities of that area has failed for that purpose for many years. This allocation perpetuates the prospect of continuing retail failure.

Object

Representation ID: 506

Received: 27/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This site lies in the historic core of Anglo-Saxon and medieval Ipswich. No objection in principle to development but it will require a condition relating to archaeological investigation attached to any planning consent. Archaeological costs have the potential to be relatively high.

Object

Representation ID: 579

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to policy DM49 which allocates 15000 sq m of new retail floorspace as opposed to 35000 in the Adopted Core Strategy. There is insufficient evidence to justify the reduction which has been reached arbitrarily. Only one site (IP40 Land at Westgate) has been allocated for new retail development but the NPPF states that a range of suitable sites should be allocated. The 2010 retail capacity study should be updated to inform policy and the Jewson site considered for town centre use.

Object

Representation ID: 635

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Development constraints mention the area of archaeological importance and adjoining Central Conservation Area but might also mention proximity of Burlington Road Conservation Area and St Matthews Church (Grade II*) to the west. The site allocation will need to be justified in terms of its heritage impacts and appropriate development criteria set if taken forward. These historic environment issues could be picked up in the supporting text.