The Port of Ipswich is situated both within and immediately adjoining the Waterfront area of IP-One. As well as maintaining its operational activities, ABP is concerned to ensure that it retains the right and ability to fully use its land and infrastructure for port purposes in the performance of its statutory duties and responsibilities as a harbour undertaking. The importance of the Port continuing to flourish as a major economic driver in the sub-region is recognised at paragraphs 5.46 - 5.48 of the draft Site Allocations DPD and at paragraphs 8.146 - 8.147 and Policies CS17 and DM25 of the CSFR and is consistent with the advice in the Ports NPS.

The Port's infrastructure includes quay and dockside facilities, accommodation, locks, navigation rights and private vehicle rights over roads within the Wet Dock/Waterfront area, routes over Orwell Quay and passing Eagle Quay and Gasworks Quay, the railhead into the West Bank Terminal at Griffin Quay, and relatively direct road access to the trunk road network (A12 and A14). It also includes rights granted to ABP and to occupiers on the port estate under both the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 to handle and store explosive substances at Ro-Ro Berths 1 and 2 on the West Bank and at the Power Station Berth on Cliff Quay, and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 to handle and store hazardous substances (including ammonium nitrate fertilizer) at Cliff Quay and in the area around the former Vopak Terminal.

Whilst, therefore, ABP is keen to support the realisation of the wider development objectives and aspirations of the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs, it must protect its 'significant (economic) role' and ability to expand further and assist in driving growth in the region.

ABP therefore requests that recognition is made in Policy DM52 and its accompanying text to the Port and to other important existing employment activity within and adjoining the Waterfront area which the Council wishes to safeguard and support. New development in the Waterfront should, therefore, be sensitive to these existing uses and avoid potential impacts which may prejudice the continued operation and, where appropriate, expansion of these uses.

as is consistent with other objections to the focused review of the core strategy and to this DPD submitted by Applekirk Properties Ltd. The company considers that the land use policies for the waterfront (as proposed) are inadequate for the waterfront's regeneration needs. In particular the policy needs more flexibility and to recognise that interim uses can make a contribution. Acceptable land uses in planning terms for this area need to include retail for it to stand any chance rekindling its regeneration.

see attached