Support

Representation ID: 5210

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome Part (e) of the policy relating to the special character and distinctiveness of Ipswich. The completion of the Urban Characterisation Study SPD would help to support this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5331

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DM5 part i. introduces the provision of public art where this would be required to enhance the public realm and/or reinforce a sense of place. This could include new installations where this would be commensurate to the scale and type of development. We do not object to IBC seeking public art but expect any requests to be proportionate in scale and to allow for flexibility, taking into account the other contributions sought, to ensure that new developments remain viable and deliverable. The definition of 'art' should be flexible and cover the delivery of a wide range of products/installations.

Object

Representation ID: 5424

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The provisions of Policy DM5(f) are not consistent with national policy and are contrary to paragraph 173 of the NPPF. DM5(f) [and paragraph 9.51] implies an obligation for homes to be built to Lifetime Homes Standard, but doesn't make this clear. Thus policy DM5 is ambiguous and establishes obligations which are inconsistent with national planning policy, which recognises that the delivery costs of polices must be taken into account. Other obligations e.g. "very good architectural quality" and "highly sustainable" buildings are subjective and without justification. The public art policy has been deleted, and clause (i) should therefore be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 5552

Received: 02/03/2015

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd (HBF)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Part I of the policy requiring the provision of public art is contrary to the advice in the NPPG and we recommend this should be deleted.