DM20 - The Central Shopping Area
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5379
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to Policy CS20 as it cannot be considered to have been positively prepared and is not justified as the strategy will not provide the future capacity for comparison and convenience retail floorspace identified in the evidence base. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail development needed. We consider that Policy CS20 fails to do this. The focus on the Central Shopping Area alone for major new retail development (here defined as over 200sqm) will not meet the requirements for retail floorspace over the plan period.
See attached.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5446
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Ipswich Central
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Central Planning Area (P107) - the zoning policy for A1 to A5 is admirable but possibly unrealistic and unresponsive to changing town centres. Town centres need to change and alternative uses must not be deterred through unduly restrictive planning policy.
See attached
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Review
Representation ID: 5447
Received: 05/03/2015
Respondent: Ipswich Central
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Central Planning Area (P107) - the extension of the retail boundary to allow for retail development on the Westgate site is unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it is completely contrary to the Council Masterplan and BID Vision to concentrate development around a north-south axis. Secondly, Ipswich has been placed 'on hold' for much retail development and retailer acquisition through clinging for far too long to the uneconomic prospects for a retail-led development on the Cox Lane/Tacket Street site. Simply moving this to the other side of the town will achieve nothing more than creating more uncertainty.
See attached