Object

Representation ID: 5200

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Theatres Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Trust is pleased Policy CS14 now reflects other uses (arts and culture), acknowledging that the success and vitality of a town centre is more than retail development.

However, neither this or Policy DM32 include protection for existing cultural facilities such as theatres. Therefore the document does not reflect NPPF item 70 which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community.

Object

Representation ID: 5340

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Legal and General Assurance Society Limited (L&G)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The DTZ report provides insufficient evidence to justify the reduction in new retail floorspace. The 2010 retail capacity study should be updated now to inform policy.
Policy is not positively prepared and could sterilise Ipswich town centre for medium to large scale retail development for 11 years, having serious implications on the vitality and viability of the centre.
Additional specific issues: other prospective development sites (e.g. Jewsons) were not considered by the DTZ report; the reduction of retail floorspace is arbitrary; CS14 restricts large scale retail development to one site.

Object

Representation ID: 5378

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

CS14 is not positively prepared or justified as the allocations included do not seek to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base. Insufficient sites are identified to meet the requirements for retail floorspace over the plan period, particularly for comparison goods. The evidence base identifies a requirement for additional retail floorspace. A single site is proposed for new retail development in the town centre (Westgate), which is carried forward as an existing commitment. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail development needed.

Object

Representation ID: 5402

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Number of people: 323

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Viability Study challenges the deliverability of the Westgate site by stating that small comparison and convenience retail is marginally viable but large format convenience is not viable. This raises uncertainty over deliverability of jobs in the town centre. The Core Strategy does not mention the acquisition of the Sugar Beet Factory site which could take jobs away from the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 5442

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Ipswich Central

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Retail Development and Main Town Centre issues (P59) - we await details of how the Council proposes to "promote high quality investment and development". In our view, in the retail (including leisure) sector, the issue is not so much vacancy rates (which remain below national averages) but, rather, attracting missing retail names through proactive and entrepreneurial inward investment techniques. We would appreciate urgent discussions on how this should be delivered and whether the responsibility may sit best with ourselves, subject to suitable funding being identified.

Object

Representation ID: 5591

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Will the proposed retail and shopping centre plan be achievable and make Ipswich a better place? SOCS endorse the Northern Fringe Protection Group's points also.

Object

Representation ID: 5598

Received: 26/02/2015

Respondent: WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The wording of the draft Core Strategy is vague. The apparent requirement for an RIA [Retail Impact Assessment] for retail schemes of 200sqm and above is draconian and instead a threshold of 1,000sqm should be adopted.

Object

Representation ID: 5608

Received: 25/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Mavis Hammond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Will this be achievable and make Ipswich a better place? A reduction in shop rents should be encouraged so that our shopping centres are more diverse and interesting.

Object

Representation ID: 5676

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Bridges

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Will this be achievable and make Ipswich a better place?

Object

Representation ID: 5685

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Bridges

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Will this be achievable and make Ipswich a better place?

Object

Representation ID: 5749

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: D C Norman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Will this be achievable and make Ipswich a better place?

Object

Representation ID: 5758

Received: 02/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Brian Pinner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 5781

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Pamela McCartney

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 5835

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr John Summers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 5846

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Summers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 5857

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Neil Summers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 5868

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Miss Charlotte Miller

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 5935

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: D Roberts

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Need new shops of good quality to lift Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 5970

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Jill Page

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 5972

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Frank Seal

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15015

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Michael Keats

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15026

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Cantwell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15046

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr John Stammers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15055

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs H E Hawker

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15065

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Richard N Cater

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15087

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs D Jarman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15098

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: D Thorn

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15110

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Roberta Seal

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15122

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Dennis Hussey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.

Object

Representation ID: 15162

Received: 03/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Richard Young

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This will not be achievable and will not make Ipswich a better place.